


im-. •\.,^^ :£MM' %.,^^ .-mm,-' -"-.^f '^ 


















^oV" 






"^, 



V\,^s^ 







c 



.^^ 






\\>' 



V .^^' 






^ ^, 'r,^.,-?-'- "^^ ^"^ 



^vT^. .9' 






^^ ,f -^^ ^:w:^ ^f % '-pf .^^^^^^ -^^ 



''^^0^' 



"\^r 






o * , 



4 o. 



vV 




> 



^^ 



^■ 



. . s ^ V 



^- 



^^ 










.^ 



•^q. 








-J." .' 






o 

o V 



^^ . 




^ ■<i> ' 

















> 














, ,_,^ ,_ . ^^ °^ 








.^ 



" o 









-^--0^ 



o V 



^•^ 



K^ 



-iq. 







^"■v. 






' .^'^ 













THE 

NORTHERN CONFEDERACY 

ACCORDING TO THE PLANS OF THE 
"ESSEX JUNTO" 1796-1814 



A DISSERTATION 

Presented to the 

Faculty of Princetoin 1\\iversity 

IN Candidacy for the Degree 

OF Doctor of Philosophy 



BY 
CHARLES RAYMOND BROWN 



PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 

PRINCETON 

LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD 

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 



THE ^^'^ 

NORTHERN CONFEDERACY 

■ ACCORDING TO THE PLANS OF THE 
"ESSEX JUNTO" 1796-1814 



A DISSERTATION 

Presented to the 

Faculty of Princeton University 

IN Candidacy for the Degree 

of Doctor of Philosophy 



'BY 

CHARLES RAYMOND BROWN 



PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 

PRINCETON 

LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD 

OXFORD university PRESS 



Published October, 1915 



Accepted by the Department of History and Politics 
May 1913 



Gift 
Thft University 




CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

1. Origin of the "Essex Junto" 7 

2. Opposition to John Adams' Administration and the 

Breaking of the Federalist Party 10 

3. Plans for Secession 1803-1804 25 

4. The Embargo of 1807 and the Junto's Plans for a 

British Alliance 46 

5. Intrigues During the War of 1812 76 

6. The Hartford Convention 102 

Bibliography 118 



PREFACE 

The ''Essex Junto" when appHed to a little band of politi- 
cians in Essex County, Massachusetts, by Governor Hancock 
in 1778, carried little significance outside of local politics. It 
very soon grew, however, to have a tremendous influence in 
national affairs. 

It is the purpose of this work to follow the "Essex Junto," 
as an active political body, in their endeavors to control Na- 
tional legislation and, by skillful misrepresentation of the mo- 
tives of the party in power, to arouse the New England people 
to the point of dissolving the Union and forming an indepen- 
dent Confederacy. I have attempted to show the true influence 
of this movement upon the national history of that period; 
and have, in some instances, found cause to give a new coloring 
to familiar historical events on account of the influence of the 
Junto. 

That there has never been a monograph written upon this 
subject is due largely to the scarcity of available sources. In 
many instances the entire correspondence of men intimately 
connected with the Junto has been purposely or otherwise de- 
stroyed; and the fact that there was no regular organized 
movement has forced me to write this monograph almost en- 
tirely from the letters which have been preserved. There are 
no secondary sources of any merit upon the subject. The most 
valuable histories covering the period merely mention the "Es- 
sex Junto," and are of little value in treating the subject. With 
letters as my principal documents, and such fragmentary bits 
of evidence as I have been able to collect, it has been a difficult 
but an interesting subject. 

Under the guidance and kind assistance of Dr. R. M. Mc- 
Elroy, this Thesis has been prepared to complete the require- 
ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Princeton 
University. 

C. R. B. 

Princeton University, 
Princeton, N. J. 



CHAPTER I 

Orkun of the "Esskx Junto" 

Almost every historian who has mentioned the 'Essex Junto" 
at all, has credited John Adams with the distinction of having 
first applied that name to a radical wing of the Federalist party 
which centered in Essex County, Massachusetts, and which af- 
terwards figured so largely in shaping the destiny of the party. 
This is not true. The name originated a quarter of a century 
before Adams applied it and under entirely different circum- 
stances. There was no such thing as party and party organiza- 
tion, as we understand those terms today, when "Essex Junto" 
was applied to a number of Essex County politicians. There 
were Whig views and Tory views but, before the Revolution, 
American political parties had not taken any definite form. 

About the time of the Declaration of Independence, the 
formation of a constitution became a matter of much moment 
in the Colonies which had just become states. In Massachu- 
setts, in June, 1776, it was proposed in the General Court that 
a constitution, or some form of government, be prepared and 
presented to the people.^ It was thought better, however, to 
refer the matter somewhat more directly to the people; and the 
House of Representatives recommended that the towns em- 
power their delegates, at the next election, to form a constitu- 
tion. Many towns, perhaps most, complied with this request, 
and early in 1778 a constitution was agreed upon by the Gen- 
eral Court, and presented to the people. It was rejected by 
them by a large vote. 

There were several- reasons offered for rejecting the con- 
stitution but the strongest one was that the proposed constitu- 
tion had carefully avoided a strong form of government and 
that the Executive was a mere cipher. The peoj^le were thus 
divided over the form of government which would be the most 
satisfactory to Massachusetts ; one class desired a constitution 

' Parsons' "Chief Justice Parsons," p. 45. 
^ Ibid., p. 46. 



which would place the governing power largely in the hands 
of the people; the other class believed that a strong centralized 
form of government would be most desirable and that the peo- 
ple should not be the real governing force. To the men of 
the latter class the proposed Constitution was wholly worthless 
and they succeeded in defeating it.^ The leaders of the opposi- 
tion were from Essex County* and believed in a strong central 
government. Here is the identical line upon which our first 
two national parties began their struggle. 

A meeting of these men took place in Essex County, in April, 
1778. By whom it was called, we do not know but it seems to 
have been attended by twenty-seven delegates.' It originated 
in Newburyport and there began its work but later adjourned 
to Ipswich. At the latter place a pamphlet was prepared and 
ordered published which contained eighteen distinct articles 
stating the leading objections to the proposed Constitution.'* 
Its long title is: "The Result of the Convention of Delegates 
holden at Ipswich, in the County of Essex, who were deputed'^ 
to take into consideration the Constitution and Form of Gov- 
ernment proposed by the Convention of States of Massachu- 
setts Bay." It is most familiar under its short title, "The Essex 
Result." 

Upon that body of men v/ho prepared this pamphlet and 
supported a strong central government, John Hancock fastened 
the title "Essex Junto" in 1778. This, therefore, was the first^ 
appearance of that name in American politics. 

The following year in September, 1779, a convention^ was 
called, and met at Cambridge, to frame a constitution. A com- 
mittee of four, Samuel Adams, John Pickering. Caleb Strong 
and William Cushing. was directed to draw up a Constitution 

' Parsons' "Chief Justice Parsons," p. 47. 

* Ibid., p. 47. 

"^ Ibid., p. 49. Documents give number of delegates and say that 
Parsons called the Essex Convention. 

'Ibid., appendix, p. 359, pamphlet printed in full. 

^ "Deputed" would lead us to believe that they were officially ap- 
pointed or elected; they were, however, evidently a self chosen body, 
representing twelve towns of the County of Essex. 

' Colonel Pickering quotes Chief Justice Parsons as saying that 
"Essex Junto" had been applied before the Revolution. There is no 
evidence that this was true, however. 

•J. S. Barry's "Hist, of Mass.," vol. 3. p. 176. 

8 



and Bill of Rights. John Adams was later added to the com- 
mittee and was the real drafter of the document although he 
was not from Essex County. The Constitution,"' as presented 
by this committee, was adopted and it gave more power to the 
Executive. 

These men of Essex County who later dominated the Fed- 
eralist party were descendants of those who, in the dark days 
of 1629, had followed Endicott into the wilderness. They were 
strong, honest, and in many cases of an almost reckless cour- 
age. But their intellectual vigor and clear perception were in 
many instances combined with great mental narrowness and 
rigidity. When time brought new political forces and expan- 
sion of ideas the old Puritan stock could not bend to meet the 
changes. They resisted, therefore, as long as they could and 
submitted only when resistance was no longer possible.^'^ In 
1644 the Essex men had turned W'irthrop and Dudley out of 
office as Federal Commissioners, and replaced them with Haw- 
thorne and Bradstreet, both of Essex County.^- Palfrey, in his 
History of New England, says. "A local Caucus (not yet so 
called) arranged a combination to dictate the proceedings of 
the government; that those of Essex procured a court made up 
of Deputies of the several shires and propounded divers things 
without communicating them to the other shires." "Two hun- 
dred years ago," says Palfrey "Essex men were thought to be 
aspiring to rule the colony, as fifty years ago an 'Essex Junto' 
was cried out against for its alleged combination to rule the 
Commonwealth."^" 

Of such material was the "Essex Junto" composed w^hich 
held political sway in Massachusetts and which had to be 
reckoned with, if not obeyed, for nearly a half century in 
national affairs.^* 

There have been many attempts to define "Essex Junto" but 

" F. N. Thorpe, "Constitution and Charters," House Documents, vol. 
3, 59th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 1888. 

"H. C. Lodge's "Life of Cabot," p. 18. 

" Palfrey's "Hist, of New England," vol. 2, p. 156. 

"Ibid., p. 157. 

" The men who composed the Junto were Timothy Pickering, Caleb 
Strong, Jonathan Jackson, Triston Dalton, Theophilus Parsons, George 
Cabot, Fisher Ames, the Lowells, Benjamin Goodhue, and Stephen 
Higginson, all from Essex County. To these we will add others who 
were associated with the Junto. 



no one has been very successful. Mr. S. E. Morrison says: "I 
take it that the Essex Junto, from 1800 to 1815 should be 
defined as the Massachusetts Federalist leaders who opposed 
John Adams in 1800, who condoned the Chesapeake outrage 
and who squinted at secession in 1814."^^ It can best be defined 
after we have finished our investigation. 

It should be remembered that the influence and activities of 
the "Essex Junto" were not to be long confined to a single 
county nor to a single state. The Junto was the dominating 
force in the Federalist party for many years ; it had followers 
very early from the other New England states, and later from 
several states outside of New England. They were not always 
as ardent and dogmatic as the old members ; nevertheless, they 
were of the same political faith and must be included under 
the title "Essex Junto" in our narrative. This monograph will 
not, therefore, have very great concern with the Junto in local 
affairs but rather with its influence upon national questions. 

^'•'Ain. Hist. Rev., July 1912, p. 794. 



10 



CHAPTER II 

Opposition to John Adams' Administration and the 
Breaking of the Federalist Party 

After the Constitution was adopted and Washington became 
President, the conflicting tendencies observed in the struggles 
over the adoption of the Constitution reappeared. The parties 
under Washington were known as the FederaHst and the Re- 
publican. It had sometimes been supposed that these parties 
are identical with the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist of 
1787-88- This is not true. To be a Federalist in 1787 and 1788 
was to favor the adoption of the Constitution. To be a states' 
rights Anti-Federalist was to oppose it. But to be a Federalist 
in 1791 was to favor the adoption of Hamilton's financial 
measures and a broad construction of the Constitution. 

The fundamental difference between the parties during the 
constitutional debate and its adoption was as to where the 
political power should center. Mr. Hamilton believed a strong 
central government with the power to govern placed in the 
hands of the aristocrats to be most satisfactory for any nation ; 
he had neither sympathy for the states rights doctrine nor faith 
in the integrity of the masses of the people, and therefore, 
labored for a form of government bordering strongly on that 
of a Monarchy. Thus the term "Well born" was a contemptu- 
ous name given to the Federalists. 

On the other hand were the states' rights Anti-Federalists 
who dreaded as the greatest of calamities the vesting of large 
power in a central authority. The Anti-Federalists believed 
that the central authority should draw its power from the states 
and from the people. We should notice, then, that these two 
parties of 1787- 1788, represent merely two tendencies, the cen- 
trifugal and the centripetal. 

Hamilton's financial policy and the broad construction of the 
Constitution in 1791, determined Jefi^erson to form a strong 
party to resist Hamilton's program. Having witnessed the out- 
break of the French Revolution, Jefferson was eminently quali- 
fied to become the leader of such an opposition party, and 



because of the predilection of its leaders for things French, the 
new party was called "Democratic-Republican." Thus the two 
parties, Federalist and Anti-Federalist, took their final form 
in the "Federalist" and the "Republican" parties. 

The next few years brought vexing questions of foreign 
relations, which caused the two parties to drift further apart. 
"Citizen Genet" landed in 1793, the very day on which Wash- 
ington issued his Neutrality Proclamation, and set to work 
rather after the fashion of a liberator than of a diplomat.^ In 
pursuance of secret instructions, he not only presumed upon 
the force of the existing treaties, but attempted to draw the; 
United States into the war, so as to make it her common cause. 
Money, men, and privateers from America, he especially reck- 
oned upon. The party led by Jefiferson was very enthusiastic 
over the French cause. It is said that, at a banquet given Genet, 
they all filed around the table sticking their knives into the head 
of a roasted pig in celebration of the beheading of Louis XVT. 
This being their attitude they exerted themselves to enlist 
French aid against England. 

The Federalists, having less feeling for French Democracy, 
repudiated this bold and presumptuous attitude. Washington 
had already issued his Proclamation, and the feeling became 
intense. Insults were heaped upon the head of the venerable 
Washington by the followers of Jefferson, and the result was 
that the Republicans gave their sympathy to the French cause 
and the Federalists gave theirs to the English. Here, therefore, 
is the beginning of the "British Faction" and the "French Fac- 
tion" and also the beginning of that party strife which lasted 
as long as the Federalist party. From this time the Essex Junto, 
leading the "British Faction," began its attacks upon the "Ja- 
cobins" or Jeffersonians. 

In 1793 Great Britain issued two of her Orders in Council,- 
by virtue of which all vessels loaded with bread stuff, bound 
for any place occupied by the French armies, were considered 
good prizes. This was almost an unbearable hardship to Amer- 
ican shipping. Hamilton, therefore, advised a special mission 
to Great Britain, and communicated his plan to that portion of 
the Junto then in the Senate. The Eastern Senators, Cabot, 
Ellsworth, Strong and King, then held a conference, endorsed 

* Schouler's "Hist, of U. S.," vol. 2, p. 265. 
" Perkins' "Late War," pp. 12-14. 

12 



the mission and appointed Ellsworth to confer with Washing- 
ton.^ He was instructed to state that Hamilton was the person 
from whom, in every point of view, a successful issue to this 
effort was most to be expected.* Ames, although more hostile 
to the English than his eastern brothers, wrote: "Who but 
Hamilton would perfectly satisfy all our wishes? He is ipsi 
agmen."^ This was probably true from a Junto point of view, 
but not from that of the Republicans. 

Washington avowed his preference for Hamilton, but in- 
timated doubts arising from the prejudices which had been ex- 
cited against him.** The same idea was repeated to Goodhue, 
"You know," said Washington," whom I wish, — but for the 
clamor they have raised against him."^ Randolph, Secretary of 
State, urged that such an appointment would be unwise,® and 
Monroe, even ventured on a letter against the choice of Ham- 
ilton.^ John Jay was nominated, as a compromise, and nego- 
tiated a treaty^" which failed to satisfy both parties, although it 
was ratified by the Senate and signed by the President. It 
is not necessary for our purpose to discuss this treaty, which 
failed to adjust many of the points which the United States 
held as grievances." 

The Junto had failed to obtain the appointment for Hamil- 
ton but in Congress it had gained adherents and succeeded in 
ratifying the treaty,^^ although it seems strange that Eastern 
Senators should have been willing to make Great Britain con- 
cessions when their commerce was the chief sufferer. Ratifica- 
tion took place behind closed doors and, when the contents of 
the treaty were made known, the country was inflamed as by 
fire. The constituents of this group of Senators held meetings 
in opposition as did the whole country. Hamilton and the 

'Hamilton's "Hist, of the Republic of the U. S.," vol. 5, p. 532. 

* Hamilton's "Republic," vol. 5, p. 532. 
' Ibid., p. 532. 

' Ibid., p. 533. Washington referred to those in the House of Repre- 
sentatives who were hostile to the Angloman party. 

' Ibid., p. 533. Jefferson, Randolph and Monroe, were responsible 
for the appointment of Jay. 

* Washington's Writings, vol. 10, appendix, p. 558. 

''Ibid., appendix, p. 558. Monroe's letter to President Washington. 
^°Jay Treaty. Am. State papers, vol. i, p. 520. 
" Hamilton's Works, vol. 7, p. 723. Hamilton said, "The Treaty 
upon the whole was satisfactory." Refer to text of Jay's Treaty. 
" Schoulers' "Hist, of U. S.," vol. 2, p. 309. 

13 



Junto were left alone. The Federalist party lost a good deal 
of local strength, which the Republicans gained ; and Great 
Britain went on with her tyranny. 

In the year 1796, in dread of the possibility of the election 
of Jefferson, and the establishment of a Southern and pro- 
French domination over the United States, an appeal was made 
to the people of Connecticut, preparing them for and pointing 
to a dissolution of the Union. "The Northern States," it urged, 
"can subsist as a Nation, as a Republic without any connection 
with the Southern."^^ There was a series of articles published 
in the Hartford Courant, over the signature of Pelham, urging 
the dissolution of the Union. ^* In letters of Oliver Wolcott, 
Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, to his son, then Secretary 
of the Treasury, the idea was repeatedly advanced. "If," says 
Wolcott, November 21, 1796, "the French arms continue to 
preponderate, and a governing influence of this Nation shall 
continue in the southern and western countries, I am confident, 
and indeed hope, that a separation will soon take place."^^ 
"Such an event," he says, November 28, 1796, "will be un- 
happy for us ; but much less so, than to be under the govern- 
ment of a French agent. "^''' "I sincerely declare," he added a 
few days later, "that I wish the Northern States would separate 
from the Southern, the moment that event (the election of 
Jefferson) shall take place."^^ 

This plan of disunion, thus rife in Connecticut in 1796, may 
not improbably be regarded as the germ of that which appeared 
at Washington, in 1803-04, at Boston in 1808-09, ^'^^1 which 
showed itself, for the last time, during the War of 1812, being 
disclosed, in the Hartford Convention of 1814. Whether or not 
this was the sowing of the seed which sprang up at the above 
mentioned places we have no evidence. It is true, however, 
that Connecticut was always represented in the movements of 
the Junto which had its base in Massachusetts. That is suffi- 
cient for our purpose. 

After the election of John Adams, the United States was 
forced to face her former ally, France, in a still more serious 

" Randall's "Jefferson," vol. 3, pp. 634-5. 
" Randall's "Jefferson." vol. 3, pp. 634-5. 

" Quoted in Plumer's "Life of Plumer," p. 283. Almost all of the 
Wolcott papers have been destroyed. 
'" Plumer's "Life of Plumer," p. 283. 
"Ibid.. 283. 

14 



difficulty, known as the X. Y. Z. affair. In this controversy the 
Federalist party received a blow^ from which it never recovered. 
France, disgusted and jealous of our recent treaty relations 
with England, set upon our commerce in retaliation for what 
she termed injustice, and it became necessary to open treaty 
negotiations with her. Adams, therefore, sent a commission 
consisting of Marshall, Gerry, and Pinckney, to negotiate with 
France upon the situation. . . . This was an unfortunate ap- 
pointment and it gave the members of the Junto an excellent 
opportunity to ridicule the new President who was as much a 
Republican as a Federalist. None of these men, except perhaps 
Gerry, were in sympathy with the French Revolution and, of 
course, their appointment was not agreeable to the French. 

Hamilton said, "To be useful, it is important that a man 
agreeable to the French should go. Either Mr. Jefferson or 
Mr. Madison should be on the committee, but neither should 
go alone." ^^ In this Hamilton was right and the appointments, 
being somewhat contrary to the advice and wishes of the lead- 
ing Federalists, further antagonized them, and led finally to 
open opposition to the Administration. This is a familiar bit 
of history and we need only state that the commission was not 
received, but w^as approached by certain unofficial gentlemen, 
named in the official despatches merely by the letters X, Y, and 
Z. The object of these unofficial visits was purely to get money 
from the United States. Their demands, therefore, were dis- 
regarded, and yielding nothing. Pinckney and Marshall were 
soon ordered to leave, while Gerry was invited to remain. That 
he did so w-as not to his credit. 

When the X. Y. Z. despatches were published, the Junto, 
especially those members of it who were in the Cabinet, was 
quick to take advantage of the feeling produced against France 
and began to work up a war spirit in New England. ^'^ Wolcott, 
Secretary of the Treasury, wrote Cabot asking him to use his 
influence with the people of Alassachusetts against France.-" 
To his request Cabot replied : 'T hope from my very soul that 
the President will enjoy the immortality which is due the man 
who dares do right when the whole world does wrong. I 

"Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 214. 

^' Political Writings in Lodge's "Cabot," pp. 581-600. This will give 
a partial estimate of the agitation which took place in New England.. 
™ Lodge's "Cabot," p. 117. 

IS 



readily accept the apostleship and will use your discourse as if 
it were my own. My zeal has already produced a letter of two 
sheets which will be transcribed as a circular to a half dozen 
friends. I will quote no authorities to infidels and the faithful 
won't need them."-^ Mr. Cabot would have been dangerously 
near the truth if he had said: "when the whole Junto does 
wrong." The war spirit in Congress was due largely to the 
energy of these men, and in 1798, preparations were begun for 
military defense. Washington was made Commander in Chief 
and chose his Major Generals as follows: Hamilton first Ma- 
jor General, Pinckney second, and Knox third.-'- 

President Adams disapproved of Washington's ranking of 
the Major Generals and attempted to place Knox above Ham- 
ilton. By this action the President brought the whole Junto 
forward with remonstrances,-^ and, but for the timely inter- 
vention of Washington, the party might have been hopelessly 
split at this juncture. As it was the existing breach between 
Adams and his party was only broadened. There was really 
no good reason for the action of President Adams in this mat- 
ter. Washington had agreed to assume the duties of Com- 
mander-in-Chief only on condition that he be allowed to choose 
his staff, and extreme aversion to Hamilton seems to have been 
the only basis for Adams' conduct. 

The first schism in the Cabinet took place at Trenton, New- 
Jersey, early in 1799.-'* The trouble arose from the President's 
desire to, send a second mission to France to attempt further 
negotiations. The particular expressions which passed on this 
occasion are not preserved; but, from Mr. Hamilton's Public 
Letter-^ we are informed of the principal causes. Such an 
efifort was considered by the Cabinet to be inconsistent with the 
honor and dignity of the Nation. Pickering, Wolcott and Mc- 
Henry, remonstrated with Aadms but with little success. Judg- 

^^ Ibid., p. 120. 

-^ Ibid., p. 177. 

^Pickering wrote Cabot confidentially saying: "The object of this 
letter is to engage you in this matter in such a way as you and one 
or two confidential friends (say Higginson and Ames) shall deem most 
eligible to prevail on the President to acquiesce in the first arrange- 
ment." 

"John Woods, "Administration of J. Adams," p. 223. 

^ A public letter in which he denounces President and which we 
will examine later. 

16 



ing from a letter-" from Pickering to Rufus King, it is clear 
that the greater part of their strength was thrown into opposi- 
tion on this measure. He says: "The second mission to France 
was deprecated by all enlightened Federalists, — especially in 
New England. I know personally that your friends Cabot, 
Ames, Higginson, Ellsworth, and Quincy objected to it."-'' 

This opposition determined Adams to make the nominations 
without further Cabinet consultation. He had no alternative if 
he wished to send the mission. So on the 26th of February, 
1799, he nominated Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, Patrick 
Henry of Virginia, and Wm. Vans Alurry of Maryland, Envoys 
Extraordinary, and drew up his own instructions. Henry de- 
clined, and Wm. R. Davie of North Carolina, was substituted. 

This friction in the Cabinet put Mr. Adams in a very difficult 
position. He believed further negotiation to be the safest pol- 
icy for the country ; but the Junto desired a war with France."* 
The policy adopted was undoubtedly the wisest but it resulted 
in the common ruin of President and party, by giving the Junto 
a broad foundation upon which to attack him. The fact that 
a portion of the party held erroneous views, and that the 
President, in opposition to these views, carried through a peace 
policy, is not a satisfactory explanation of the consequent defeat 
of the Federalists. 'The causes of defeat in this instance lay 
deeper, and were inherent not only in the party, but also in the 
character of the prominent men."-** There were too many lead- 
ers in the party ; all of them were unbending and all dogmatic 
to a greater or less degree. This policy of Adams, the wisdom 
of which cannot be doubted, was held as an absurdity by most 
of the dominant Federalists. It was unfortunate also that 
two^" of the most ardent supporters of the war policy held the 
highest offices in the Administration. 

We cannot doubt that Hamilton and all of the Junto saw 

^Pickering Mss., November 7, 1799. 

" Combine these with Hamilton and the Cabinet Junto members and 
we have the leaders of the opposition. 

^ Adams Works, vol. 9, p. 270. 

'" Lodge's "Cabot," p. 193. 

^ Pickering and McHenry, Secretaries of State and of War. Wol- 
cott was Secretary of the Treasury. Pickering was a man as eminent- 
ly self-centered as Adams and perhaps had a greater imagination, for 
he truly believed that he was the whole Cabinet. He not only aspired 
to lead his party but also the President. 

17 



clearly that peace and strong neutrality were for the best inter- 
ests of this country, but they were trying to restrain "Jacobism" 
and hold the reins of the Government, at the same time ; which 
policy gradually undermined their strength. "We must all 
agree," says Pickering to Higginson, "in the one great object 
of securing Federalists for the two first magistrates of the 
Union ; that all predilections which might thwart this view must 
be laid aside. "^^ 

However great may have been Adams' mistakes his position 
was now almost intolerable for his highest ministers were work- 
ing against his policies. He was somewhat relieved, therefore. 
when McHenry asked permission to resign his office as Secre- 
tary of War.^- His resignation was accepted by the President 
who immediately requested Pickering to resign his office as 
Secretary of State. The Secretary refused to resign and was 
dismissed by the President. Pickering immediately wrote Ham- 
ilton of his dismissal and added : "I have been contemplating 
the importance of a bold and frank exposure of Adams ; per- 
haps I may have it in my pjower to furnish some facts. ""^ 

Adams' greatest mistake in connection with these men was 
his retaining them in office so long. It was the duty of a 
President to replace officers who directly oppose his leadership, 
not because the President may always be sound in his opinions 
and the offending officers unsound, but because no President 
can hope to accomplish anything when there is a direct and bitter 
opposition among his advisers. A "Kitchen Cabinet" working 
in harmony is to be preferred to one of intellectual giants pull- 
ing at either end of the string, as subsequent history^ has dis- 
closed. Adams received a round of biting abuse from the other 
Junto members who added this to their growing stock of griev- 
ances. Sedgwick wrote Hamilton in this connection saying: 
"Every tormenting passion rankles in the bosom of that weak 
and frantic old man, but I have good reasons to believe that 
Pickering and McHenry have been sacrificed as a peace offering. 
But no decided measures should be taken until I see you."^* 
The cause of the sacrifice of these men upon an altar of peace. 

'' Pickering Mss., December 23, 1799. 

'^ Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 44^. — McHenry to Hamilton : "I re- 
quested the President's permission to resign the office of Secretary 
of War May 6, 1800." 

^' Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 443- 

^Ibid., p. 442. 

18 - 



according to Junto estimates, was the desire of Adams for 
Southern favor in the approaching election. There may have 
been an element of truth in this, because the Junto were rapidly 
ruining his chances at the North. The sacrifice caused much 
excitement in their ranks and they used it as evidence against 
him later.^^ 

Adams seems never to have suspected any disloyalty on the 
part of Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury. He was 
not nearly so boisterous and disturbing a man as Pickering, 
yet in a very guarded way he furnished more information than 
any other man for Hamilton's denunciation of the President. 
He wrote Hamilton, July 7, 1800, that he would readily furnish 
any statements desired; that the affairs of the government 
would not only be ruined but the Federalist party disgraced 
if it permitted Adams to be re-elected.^*' He admitted in the 
same letter that many prominent Federalists were being dis- 
credited, and suggests that an apology must be offered to the 
public. We shall see later how this apology was presented. 

The lack of system in Adams' Administration can, in a large 
measure, be traced to these Cabinet officers. They were mem- 
bers of the Essex Junto and were constantly acting under an 
influence from without and not in accord with their chief. 
It should be noticed that nearly, if not all, of their complaints 
had been addressed to Hamilton. In short, Hamilton dictated 
to and led the Junto always contrary to Adams' policies. They 
wrote him regarding every move by the President and sought 
instructions as to their procedure. 

It was upon this body of men, some of whom were in Con- 
gress, some in the Cabinet, and others outside, that President 
Adams fixed the name "Essex Junto,"^' and because of their 
eagerness for a war with France he called them the "British 
faction, aided by Alexander Hamilton and his satellites.^" 

^^ Lodge's "Cabot"; Adams' Works, vol. 9; Schouler's "Am. Hist.," 
vol. 2. Here we have a party of intriguers tampering with a disease 
without offering a method of cure. 

Dr. N. Ames says in his Diary, vol. 10, p. 2-]: "Such reiterated in- 
solence of the British Junto cannot long be borne. Beasts would resist 
such gibes and goads as the Administration are receiving from the 
Junto." 

"Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 447. 

"Harper's Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 246; Schouler, vol. 2, p. 481. 

^Adams' Works, vol. 9, p. 281; Lodge's "Cabot," p. 20. Pickering 
says that Adams attributed his (3 vote) majority over Jefferson in 

19 



The Republicans rejoiced at the charge of "British faction," 
but Hamilton determined to denounce Adams publicly ; a plan 
which had long been in his mind, and as he had succeeded in 
getting the necessary information he believed the time ripe 
for the blow.^" Hamilton had evidently been much concerned 
as to the most satisfactory way in which to present the denun- 
ciation. He wrote Wolcott : "If I denounce him publicly mem- 
bers of the Cabinet will be understood to be the sources of my 
information. I could predicate it on the fact that I am abused 
by the friends of Mr. Adams, who ascribe my opposition to 
pique and disappointment ; and could give it the shape of a 
defense of myself."*^ It is very clear that Hamilton's con- 
science was far from being easy, for, if the secret intrigues of 
the Junto were laid open, he foresaw the sad end of its career. 
He realized that a bold move must be made at once, or the day 
would be lost for the Junto and himself. So he again addressed 
Wolcott as follows: "I wait with impatience for the facts 
which you promised me." It is plain that, unless we give our 
reasons in some form or other, Mr. Adams' personal friends, 
seconded by the Jacobins, will completely run us down in public 
opinion. Your name, in company with mine, that of T. Picker- 
ing, etc., is in full circulation, as one of the British faction of 
which Mr. Adams has talked so much."*- Wolcott was evident- 
ly slightly dilatory in complying with Hamilton's wishes for a 
few days later he received another letter from Hamilton, say- 
ing: "You may depend upon it, a very serious impression has 
been made dn the public mind, by the partisans of Mr. Adams, 
to our disadvantage. That the facts hitherto known have very 
partially impaired the confidence of the Federalists in Mr. 
Adams, who for want of information,*^ were disposed to regard 
his opponents as factious men. If this cannot be counteracted, | 

our characters are the sacrifice."** 

1797, to the Essex Junto and named especially Cabot, Parsons and 
Higginson. 

'* Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 450. 

*• Ibid., p. 450. 

" These are the facts which Wolcott had promised to furnish re- 
lative to the confidential Cabinet communications. 

■" Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 449. 

■"All the information, so far as the Junto was concerned, had been 
confined to secret correspondence, from one to another. 

** Gibbs, "Administration of Washington and Adams," vol. 2, p. 422. 

20 



Hamilton finally got the desired information from the Cab- 
inet officials*^ and just before the election in 1800 published his 
famous pamphlet, entitled: "The Public Conduct and Character 
of John Adams, Esq-, Presiden of the United States."*'^ This 
paper was supposed to show why President Adams was unfit 
for re-election and why certain members of the party were ad- 
vocating the election of General Pinckney. It degenerated, how- 
ever, into a most spiteful attack upon the character and 
administration of Adams. It attempted to cast all public dis- 
favor upon the President and, at the same time, to place a veil 
over the foiled intrigues of the Junto. 

Mr. Adams in commenting on Hamilton's bold assertions, 
contained in the pamphlet, wondered how he (Hamilton) got 
such minute information. He asked the question, "Had he a 
spy in the Cabinet, who transmitted from day to day the con- 
fidential communications between the President and heads of 
the departments ?"*' Hamilton has told us very clearly whence 
came his information. In a letter to Wolcott he says : "Some 
of the most delicate of the facts stated, I hold from the three 
Ministers, you yourself particularly, and I do not think myself 
at liberty to take the step without your consent. I never mean 
to bring proof, but to stand upon the credit of my own 
veracity." *- 

We need not give much time to a discussion of this publica- 
tion, for Hamilton has made it clear that it would be a defense 
of the secret conduct of the Essex Junto.*^ He proceeded to 
unfold the faults of the President chiefly by dwelling on such 
peculiarities as temper, egotism, vanity and jealousy. He 
showed neither corruption, insanity, nor ruinous misbehavior 
on the part of Adams, as some of his friends had expected him 
to do"'° ; nor that the President was wrong and the would-be 
directors were right in the French affair. In fact, Hamilton 
had undertaken more than even he could do, and a very weak 
and disgusting document was the result. It was held by many 
Federalists to be highly impolitic^'^ ; disclosing as it did a deter- 

^ Pickering, Wolcott, and McHenry. 

*' Hamilton's Works, vol. 7, p. 687 ; the pamphlet is given in full. 
" Adams Works, vol. 9, p. 303. 
*^ Gibbs, "Washington and Adams." vol. 2, p. 421. 
** Gibbs, "Washington and Adams," vol. 2, p. 422. 
^ Schouler's "Am. Hist.," vol. 2, p. 489. 
" Sullivan's "Public Letters," p. 103. 

21 



mined aversion from the continuance of Mr. Adams' official 
power; it was undoubtedly the strongest instrument that con- 
tributed to the defeat of Adams at the ensuing election. This 
publication, whatever may be thought of its motive, time and 
manner, certainly broke the last thread which held together 
the Federalist party. The break would have come in time and 
nothing could have prevented it, because all of the strongest 
men in the party were leaders, all egotistic and all narrow. 
Therefore, Hamilton, aided by the able leaders from New Eng- 
land, whom Adams saw fit to classify as a "Junto" wrecked 
vengeance upon the party which they had labored to create. 

The truth must be told. There were a few of Hamilton's 
friends, the Junto, who had expected Adams to make an un- 
qualified recommendation of a declaration of war against 
France in his message of 1798. When the President arrived at 
Philadelphia, he said : "I sent for the heads of departments to 
consult, in the evening, upon the points to be inserted in the 
message to Congress, which was soon to meet. The conduct of 
these gentlemen upon this subject was as I wished it to be, 
no one giving a decided opinion either for or against a declara- 
tion of war. That there was disappointment, however, in 
Hamilton and his friends, is apparent enough from this con- 
sideration, that, when it was definitely known that a declaration 
of war was not to be recommended in the President's message, 
a secret caucus was called of Federal members of Congress, to 
see if they could not get a vote for a declaration of war, with- 
out any recommendation from the President, as they had voted 
the Alien and Sedition law and the Army. All that I shall say 
is, that Mr. Hamilton and friends could not carry the vote."^- 
President Adams says he then asked, "What action should be 
taken in the case we determined against a declaration of war? 
Instead of silence and reserve which was given my first ques- 
tion, it was urged that France be allowed to make the first 
overture. I believe that some of the heads of departments 
were confident, in their own minds, that France would not send 
a minister here."^^ 

Mr. Stoddert, in a private letter, declares the belief that the 
result of this Caucus was decisive in fixing the policy of the 
country. He says : "A majority of the Caucus, composed en- 

°^ Adams' Works, vol. 9, p. 304. 
""Ibid., p. 304-06. 

22 



tirely of Federal members of the two Houses, would not agree 
to a declaration of war ; and the result of the meeting showed 
too plainly to be mistaken by the President that it was his duty 
to avail himself of the first fair opportunity that presented 
itself for seeking reconciliation, without debasement." ■'"* 

Adams, having changed his position somewhat, carefully left 
an opening for negotiation, should France express a desire to 
treat with us. In this message of December 8, 1798, he says: 
"It is peace that we have uniformly and preservingly cultivated, 
and harmony between us and France may be restored at her 
option. But to send another Minister there without more de- 
terminate assurances that he would be received, would be an 
act of humiliation to which the United States ought not submit. 
It must, therefore, be left with France, and if she desires ac- 
commodation we will respect the sacred right of embassy. "^^ 

Therefore, the question, "why did the Junto so ardently 
desire war with France," naturally presents itself. In one of 
Mr. Adams' papers printed in the Boston Patriot he makes the 
following statement: "They could not, or would not, distin- 
guish between Jacobinism and neutrality. Every thing with 
them was Jacobinism, except a war with France and an alliance 
with Great Britain. They all panted for a war between the 
United States and France as sincerely, though not as ardently, 
as Alexander Hamilton.'' Mr. Liston^*' repeatedly suggested, 
according to Adams" that he was ready to discuss that ques- 
tion. "And there were not wanting insinuations and instiga- 
tions to me," says Adams, "to confer with Mr. Liston on the 
subject of an alliance. "^'''^ 

Pickering denied that he ever wished to bring about an alli- 
ance with Great Britain, but he says, "In 1798, I, in company 
with others, deemed ?.. rupture with France inevitable and it 
was certainly natural and proper to ally ourselves with Great 
Britain."'^ That is, they desired a rupture with France as the 
only means of justifying the alliance with Great Britain; but 

'' Stoddert to Adams, in Lodge's "Life of Cabot." p. 200; also noted 
by C. F. Adams, "Life of J. Adams," vol. 9, p. 305- 
"Adams' Works, vol. 9, p. 128. 
'"English Minister to the United States. 
"Adams' Works, vol. 9, p. 286. 
■'■' Ibid., p. 286. 
^' Pickering, Mss., December 14, 1800. 

23 



we must not forget the fact that Mr. Adams is defending him- 
self and is known to have been egotistic, self-reliant, and un- 
bending. We must remember also that if there is one 
characteristic which always marked the lives of John Adams 
and his son, it was honesty of purpose. By whom, therefore, 
was shown the greater amount of patriotism, Hamilton and 
the Junto, or the President who stilled their war cry?"*'*' I 
would not even suggest that Adams was a faultless man. I 
would not have any one believe that he did not make his errors, 
many of which were due to flights of temper, etc., but the fact 
cannot be denied that Adams' judgment was sound and for the 
best interests of the Nation. He had the peace and welfare of 
this country at heart, while the opposition were intriguing to 
prevent further negotiations and to hurl us into a war with 
France. For what? Largely because Alexander Hamilton 
could not see beyond the command of a large army. The Junto 
seemed to think that anything was honest and honorable so 
long as it kept the Jacobins out of office. 

Adams, therefore, succeeded in putting down the Junto plots 
at this period, and thus prevented a war with France; but the 
price was his defeat and also that of the Federalist party. I 
think that it would not be unjust to Hamilton and to the Junto 
to say that they broke up their own party because they could 
not control and dictate the wb.ole of its policy. Adams seems 
never to have been as confident of Hamilton's genius and hon- 
esty as was Washington. Washington brought the best out of 
the fiery West Indian ; Adams stirred him to do his worst. 

During the last few years of Adams' administration Hamil- 
ton had the advantage of being the critic, while Adams bore 
the responsibility. The final collapse found Hamilton and 
Adams each in command of a fragment of the party, neither 
having sufficient strength to be efifective. 

** I say Hamilton and the Junto because he was their faithful guide 
and spokesman for a number of years. 



24 



CHAPTER III 
Plans for Secession i 803-1804 

For the first and last time in his administration John Adams 
found himself popular after the publication of the X. Y. Z. 
despatches. The moderate Republicans in the House were 
swept away by the current, and thus there was built up a com- 
pact Federalist majority in both houses. It then proceeded de- 
liberately to make sure of the destruction of the party. The 
newspapers had now reached an extraordinary degree of viol- 
ence ; attacks upon the Federalists, and particularly upon 
Adams, were numerous, and keenly felt. Many of the journal- 
ists were foreigners. Englishmen and Frenchmen. To the ex- 
cited minds of the Federalist leaders, these men seemed leagued 
with France in an attempt to destroy the liberties of the coun- 
try; to get rid of the most violent of these writers and at the 
same time to punish American-born editors who too freely 
criticised the administration, seemed to them essential. To 
meet both necessities they passed the Alien, Sedition, and Nat- 
uralization laws, the first empowering the President to banish 
from the country, without giving a reason for or a trial to, any 
alien whom he considered a dangerous or suspicious person ; 
the second made it a crime to publish any false and malicious 
writings against the Government, Congress, or the President, 
with the intent to defame them, to bring them into contempt, or 
to excite the hatred of the people against them ; the third raised 
the time of residence for naturalization from five to fourteen 
years. These laws were intended to silence the Republican 
journalists and to make permanent the Federalist power but 
their effect was just the opposite of what was expected and 
they practically assured the success of the Republicans at the 
next election. 

In 1 80 1, after it was known that there would be a Republican 
President, with a majority in both houses of Congress, the 
Federalists resolved to bolster up their power in the third de- 
partment of government. A Judiciary Act was therefore 

25 



passed, creating new courts, new judges, and new salaried of- 
ficials. All the resulting appointments were made by Adams 
and are known as " midnight judges" because of their twelfth 
hour appointment. 

But the assurances that a Republican had been elected did 
not end the difficulties for the Jeffersonians. The Constitution 
had neither specified which candidate should be voted for as 
the presidential preference nor which should receive the sec- 
ond honors. The Constitution said: "The person having the 
greatest number of votes shall be President, if such number be 
a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and the 
person receiving the second highest number of votes shall be 
Vice-President." When returns were in Mr. Jefferson and 
Mr. Burr were found to have an equal number of votes. The 
responsibility of electing a President was then thrown upon the 
House of Representatives. 

It is thought by some that a lack of party organization was 
responsible for Jefferson not getting a larger electoral vote than 
Burr.^ But it is also thought by others that Mr. Burr employed 
secret agents and sent them into some of the states when the 
Legislatures were appointing the electors to use their influence 
in his favor.- Mr. Davis, in his Life of Burr, says that Timothy 
Green of New York vvas sent to South Carolina, and Abraham 
Bishop of New Haven to Pennsylvania. Both of these men 
flatly deny any such connection with Burr. Burr also denies 
the charge.^ Despite these denials there is much evidence to 
prove that Burr was, in truth, intriguing with disappointed Fed- 
eralists to obtain the seat intended for Jefferson.* Hamilton 
wrote Bayard before the election saying, "Burr is intriguing 
with all his might in New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont 
with a possibility of success."^ 

The Junto came out openly and declared themselves in favor 
of Mr. Burr when the vote was known to be equal. Almost 
all the federal newspapers® advocated the election of Burr. 

^Powell's "Nullification and Secession," pp. 116-117; Von Hoist, vol. 
I, p. 168. 
* M. L. Davis' "Memoirs of A. Burr," vol. 2, pp. 91-98; printed letters. 
' Ibid. 

■* John Wood's "Views of Burr's Political Conduct." 
'■ Hamilton's "iRepublic," vol. 7, p. 402. 
"Papers for 1801, Harvard Library. 

26 



Different reasons, however, were assigned for this preference. 
The Connecticut Courant was in favor of him, because he was 
of Xew England extraction ; the New York Gazette intimated 
that Burr would give up his bad principles ; and the Boston 
Ccntinel preferred him because it thought his character some- 
what like that of Bonaparte, but possessed of none of the cold 
hearted qualities of the Gallic Consul! Such is the sentiment 
to be gathered from the leading newspapers on the subject. 

When the balloting began in the House, the Federalists, hav- 
ing a majority, attempted to elect Burr over Jefferson, or pre- 
vent an election altogether.' In the last event the President of 
the Senate would have been made acting President, but in case 
there had been no President of the Senate, the Speaker of the 
House would have acted President, pro-tempore, until a new 
election could be held.^ 

Burr promised to commit himself to the Junto in the event 
of success through their instrumentality.^ The electors of New 
Jersey were federal. Dr. Samuel Smith, President of the 
College of Xew^ Jersey, was an elector. It was boldly charged 
that Dr. Smith was secretly to have voted for Mr. Burr and 
thus make him President of the United States.^*' 

Hamilton, who had led the Junto through the Administration 
of John Adams, broke with them when they proposed to put 
Burr in the President's chair or to prevent an election al- 
together. It is evident, however, that he was willing to provoke 
a quarrel between Jefferson and Burr, for he wrote Wolcott, 
December i6, 1800: "It may be well enough to throw out a lure 
for him (Burr), in order to tempt him to start for the plate, 
and then lay the foundation of dissention between the two 
chiefs. You may communicate this letter to Marshall" and 
Sedgwick."^- Perhaps he thought this would cause a rupture 
in the Republican party and finally reinstate the Federalists ; or, 
perhaps, he hoped that Burr would challenge Jeft'erson and 

'Von Hoist, vol. I, p. 186; Powell's "Nullification and Secession," 
p. 116; Hamilton's "Republic," vol. 7, pp. 424-468. 

'Act of March i, 1792, W. W. Willoughby "Constitution," vol. 2, p. 
1141. 

' Davis' "Memoirs of A. Burr," vol. 2, p. 89. 

'Vfcid., Dr. Smith denied the charge. 

" Chief Justice. 

"Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 486. 

27 



both be killed. It is difficult to say just what Hamilton had in 
mind at this time. 

Hamilton received letter after letter from members of the 
Junto giving reasons why Burr should be preferred to JetTer- 
son.^" Sedgwick wrote that he believed Burr would commit 
himself to Federalist policy if elevated to the Presidency by 
them.^* Ames, less confident and with an eye directed to the 
future, wrote: "I doubt whether Burr will be Federal, if 
chosen by the Federalists. He would reconcile himself to his 
old friends as soon as possible. Will Jefferson forget or for- 
give your efforts to bring in Burr, if they should fail of suc- 
cess ? Will resentment precipitate him to adopt violent coun- 
sels, to attack the funds, to restrict British commerce, to hug 
France closer, etc. ?"^^ 

To these and many similar letters, Mr. Hamilton replied de- 
nouncing the idea and advising that Federalists support Mr. 
Jeff"erson. Hamilton and Burr were bitter political rivals in 
New York and the idea of the latter being elevated to the 
Presidency provoked many harsh accusations from Hamilton. 
In regard to their preventing an election he said: "This, if it 
could succeed, would be, for obvious reasons, a most dangerous 
and unbecoming policy. But it is well it should be understood 
that it cannot succeed."^" He wrote Wolcott some days later 
saying : "The idea that Burr is to be elevated to the Presidency 
by the Federalists forces causes me pain. Will any reasonable 
calculation on the part of the Federalists uphold the policy of 
assuming so great a responsibility in the support of so unprom- 
ising a character? Adieu to the Federal Troy, if they introduce 
this Grecian horse into their citadel. "^'^ "If there is one man 
in this world," Hamilton wrote G. Morris, "I ought to hate, 
it is Jefferson. ''^'^ Yet when he was fully convinced that the 
Junto had entered into such a plot, his pen produced letter after 
letter urging his followers to exert their influence for Mr. Jef- 

^^ Hamilton's "Republic," vol. 7, pp. 434-465 ; the correspondence in this 
regard was very extensive. The above will furnish an idea of what 
actually transpired. 

"Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 511. 

"* Seth Ames, "Fisher Ames," vol. i, p. 291. 

''Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 508. 

^'Ibid., pp. 487-489. 

^^ Ibid., p. 499. 

28 



ferson.^" He, therefore, stood out alone opposed to the in- 
trigues of those whom he had led against John Adams until 
Jefiferson was elected. 

Burr's refusal to denounce his Republican friends and to 
commit himself definitely to the Federal yoke was the one great 
reason why he was not elected President. -° He was perfectly 
willing, however, to accept anything ofifered to him.-^ But on 
this, as on all other subjects, he refused to commit himself to 
the Junto policy. There was no man more thoroughly despised 
by the Federalists than Aaron Burr. Why then did they wish 
to throw him upon the country as its chief? "Whatever they 
may imagine," says Hamilton, "the desire of mortifying the 
adverse party must be the chief spring of the disposition to 
prefer Burr."-- 

No one saw more plainly than Alexander Hamilton that the 
American people, especially the followers of Thomas Jefferson, 
would not be content with the election of Mr. Burr. The Junto 
were certainly not ignorant of the fact that Jefiferson was the 
people's choice and that they were sowing seeds for a revolu- 
tion ; yet Bayard says, "We had several caucuses in the House. 
All acknov/ledged that nothing but desperate measures remain- 
ed, which several were disposed to adopt, and but few willing 
openly to disapprove."-^^ If Burr had been the people's choice, 
Jefiferson would doubtless have acquiesced without a murmur, 
but Burr being a Junto choice. Jefferson's attitude can only be 
a matter of conjecture. But there was every reason to doubt 
the sanction of the people, in such an event, and Hamilton 
clearly understood it. The campaign brought out the fact 
that Mr. Jefferson was the best loved and most soundly hated 
man in America. 

Not until the thirty-sixth ballot, did Jefferson get a majority. 
He was then declared elected. Again the country was rescued 
from an ugly Junto plot. This time, we must thank Mr. Ham- 
ilton for deserting the Junto and for his unusual patriotism, 

^'^ Ibid., see letter to Governor Jay, N. Y., in which Hamilton asks 
the Legislature be assembled for the purpose of changing in Jefferson's 
favor, the number of electors. Jenkinson's "Life of Burr," p. 6i. 

"^ Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 487 ; Von Hoist, vol. I, p. 173. 

^^ Ibid., p. 522. Bayard to Hamilton; "The means existed for electing 
Burr, but this required his co-operation." 

" Ibid., p. 489. 

" Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 523. 

29 



and Mr. Burr for maintaining an ambiguous position. The 
people undoubtedly voted for and intended that Mr. Jefiferson 
should be President. If Mr. Burr had been elected we may 
still wonder wdiat would have been his policies. Unfortunately 
we can think of nothing but civil strife and discord. 

We have seen how Hamilton had led the Junto against the 
Administration of John Adams; how he halted and displayed 
symptoms of patriotism when it was desired to place Burr in 
the President's chair; and now we are to see him discarded 
because he would not lead to the desired extremes. 

It is a significant fact that from this time on the Junto began 
to seek another leader, for Hamilton had proved himself not 
as radical as themselves when it came to a point of action. 
The party was in a hopeless condition. Jefit'erson's election had 
not caused the internal revolution which they had expected. 
The New England leaders had become desperate. Fisher Ames 
in a letter to Gore sums up the situation thus : "The Federal- 
ists are already stigmatized as an oligarchy, as a British fac- 
tion. Hamilton is obnoxious and persecuted by popular clam- 
ors, in which Federalists, to their shame, join."-* 

The most important question which Jefferson had to face 
during his first administration was the right of navigating the 
Mississippi river. Spain had on the ist of October, 1800, 
ceded the whole of Louisiana to France. Our depositing sta- 
tion and the mouth of the Mississippi were temporarily closed. 
The situation demanded an immediate solution. The real 
statesmansiiip of Jefferson flashed forth at once showing 
every one his attitude on such questions, even though it was 
with France. He wrote Ambassador Livingston in Paris say- 
ing: "This session completely reverses all the political relations 
of the United States and will form a new epoch in our political 
course. There is one spot on the globe, the possessor of which 
is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through 
which the produce of three-eights of our territory must pass. 
France, placing herself in the door, assumes to us the 
attitude of defiance.'"-^ Negotiations were immediately begun 
and on the 30th of April, 1803. the treaty ceding the whole of 
Louisiana to the United States for the sum of $15,000,000 was 
concluded at Paris. 

" Ames, "Life of Ames," vol. i, p. 289. 
== Jefferson's Works, vol. 4, pp. 431-432. 

30 



Hamilton again manifested true statesmanship by declaring 
with Jefferson: "I have always held the unity of our empire, 
and the best interests of our nation that we shall annex to the 
United States all the territory east of the Mississippi, New Or- 
leans included. "-'' But not so the Junto! This position placed 
a greater barrier between Hamilton and the Junto. Xor did 
the majority of the Federalist party share this broad view, 
but ridiculed the President for making the purchase. For what 
reason? Because Xew England believed that this expansion 
of territory gave the Southern states a preponderance for all 
time."-' It was the old battle cry, balance of power. One sec- 
tion must not be allowed more representation than the other. 
This extension would give the South the advantage. 

It was the purchase of Louisiana, therefore, which gave im- 
petus to a plan which had been creeping upon Xev/ England, 
aided and stimulated by the Essex Junto. They agreed that 
the inevitable consequences of the annexation of this vast terri- 
tory would be to diminish the relative weight and influence of 
the Northern section ; that it would aggravate the evils of slave 
representation and endanger the Union by the enfeebling exten- 
sion of its line of defense against foreign invasions. But the 
alternative to annexation was, — Louisiana and the mouth of 
the ^Mississippi in the possession of France under Napoleon 
Bonaparte. 

The acquisition of Louisiana, although the immediate cause 
for this project of disunion, was not its only, nor even its most 
operative cause. The election of Mr. Jefferson to the Presi- 
dency had meant to those swayed by sectional feelings the tri- 
umph of the South over the North, — of the slave representation 
over the free. On party grounds it was the victory of pro- 
fessed democracy over Federalism. Louisiana was accepted 
as the battle ground, however, and from that point the war 
was waged. 

Mr. Griswold, Representative from Connecticut, said in the 
House of Representatives. October, 1803: "The vast and un- 
manageable extent which the accession of Louisiana will give 
the United States ; the consequent dispersion of our population, 
and the destruction of that balance of power which is so im- 
portant to maintain between the Eastern and Western States, 

** Hamilton's Works, vol. 6, p. 552. 
"Von Hoist, vol. I, p. 185. 

31 



threatens, at no distant day, the subversion of our Union."*^ 
Plumer of New Hampshire, declared in the Senate: "Admit 
this Western World into the Union and you destroy, at once 
the weight and importance of the Eastern States, and compel 
them to establish a separate and independent empire." -** 

The Junto stoutly maintained, not only on the floor of Con- 
gress, but also among their constituents, that the balance of 
power between the North and South was disturbed.^" They be- 
came active in stirring up the Federal press of New England 
to clamor for separation, and by all the means in their power 
encouraged the leaders of their faction in Congress to lay plans 
for secession.'' Massachusetts was the leading commonwealth 
in raising the cry of disunion. =*- The Massachusetts Federalists 
asked for an amendment'^^ to the Constitution which sets forth, 
at length, the principle that the Union of States could not exist 
on terms of inequality; that the representation of slaves was a 
concession of the East to the South, and that the representa- 
tion was injurious and hurtful from the first.^* The advocates 
of the proposed amendment stoutly maintained that Massachu- 
setts was in danger ; that her sovereignty and her independence 
were swiftly and surely being taken away ; that the power of 
the South over the North was due to slaves and that a crisis 
was at hand. Thus the sons of Massachusetts argued 
that separation was the only means of preserving their 
independence.^^ 

In view of subsequent history, it is interesting to reflect that 
the earliest talk of disunion came from those who upheld 
and profited by the institution of slavery, but from men who 

=* Annals of Congress, No. 13, Eighth Cong., ist Sess., p. 465. 

^Ibid., Wm. Plumer, at first, was an ardent supporter of the North- 
ern Confederacy plan, but later changed his position and furnished 
much valuable information about the Junto. 

'"Ann. Rep't of the Am. Hist. Asso., 1897, p. 152; eleven years later 
this same question was debated in the Hartford Convention, and an 
amendment was prepared to so amend the Constitution that New 
England might hold her power in the National Gov. 

'^ Ibid., p. 152. 

^7fci(f., p. 152. 

'"^Ibid., p. 153; McMaster, vol. 3, p. 45; known as the "Ely Amend- 
ment," passed by Mass. Legislature and presented to Congress by T. 
Pickering but there perished. 

** Ibid., p. 153- 

"^ Ibid., p. 153- 

32 



were descendants of the founder of civil liberty in New 
England. 

The disunion project was under secret discussion in the 
eastern quarter of the Union, fermented by those most hostile 
to the new order of things. It had its origin, as we have seen, 
in Washington where the New England coterie in Congress 
comprised ambitious and disappointed men.^" 

The Connecticut Courant comments upon the situation as 
follows : "Although our National Government must fall a sac- 
rifice to the folly of Democracy, and to the fraud and violence 
of Jacobinism, yet if our state governments can be preserved, 
tranquilty may yet be lengthened out. These observations are 
made in full view of that most deplorable event, the fall of the 
National Government. But, I hope that our state governments 
may yet be preserved from the claws of Jacobinism."" The 
Eastern Argus, on the other hand, hostile to the Junto move- 
ment, declares that the time has arrived when the cloven foot 
of Federalism has made its appearance without a covering. 
"The plots of these leaders of aristocracy," it says, "have been 
showing their hideous deformity, at different periods, ever 
since the establishment of our Government. But that which 
discloses their ultimate design to overthrow our happy Govern- 
ment and establish a monarchy, appears in the declaration of 
Uriah Tracy, Senator from Connecticut.'"^^ The Argus goes 
on to quote the letter from Mr. Tracy to General Skinner "and 
others" in which he declared that, "Republican forms of gov- 
ernment will never answer" — that "our Constitution is good for 
nothing," — that, "the President and Senators must be heredi- 
tary," — that, "it must be here as in Great Britain." 

Mr. Jefferson said : "The 'Essex Junto' alone desire separa- 
tion. The majority of the Federalists do not aim at separation. 
Monarchy and separation is the policy of the Essex Federalists ; 
Anglomany alone, that of those who call themselves Federalists. 
The last are as good Republicans as the brethren whom they 
oppose and differ only in their devotion to England and hatred 
of France imbibed from their leaders. "^^ No one has given a 
better summary of the shattered Federalist desires than this. 

•'"' Schouler's "Am. Hist.," vol. 3, p. 68. 
" The Conn. Courant, March 8, 1812. 
^ The Eastern Argus, February 10, 1804. 
^'Jefferson's Works, vol. 9, p. 182. 

Z2 



The Junto had been working for some time without any cen- 
tral head or rallying point. They had no leader since Hamilton 
forsook them, and this had proved to be a great impediment 
and, perhaps, a greater blessing to the country. There was no 
organization working toward a desired end.*'' They were sim- 
ply trying to get as accurate an idea as possible of the sentiment 
of the people upon whom they must depend. They maintained 
the utmost secrecy*^ and went about on their tiptoe lest the 
awful monster leading the opposing forces be acquainted with 
their plans. They were sensible of the fact, however, that there 
must be some central point around which they could cluster, 
and someone as reckless as themselves to lead. I think we can 
say that Mr. Pickering, from this time, assumes the position 
of leader and does more than any other man to effect their 
schemes. 

In a letter to Mr. Cabot, Pickering gives us a pretty clear 
idea what the Junto had in mind and what they hoped to ac- 
complish. To quote him : "The last refuge of Federalism is 
New England, and immediate exertion, perhaps, its only hope. 
It must begin in Massachusetts. The proposition would be 
welcomed in Connecticut; and we doubt of New Hampshire? 
But New York must be associated ; and how is her concurrence 
to be obtained? She must be made the center of the confed- 
eracy}- A'ermont and New Jersey would follow, of course, and 
Rhode Island of necessity. Who can be consulted, who will 
take the lead? The Legislatures of Massachusetts and Con- 
necticut meet in May, and of New Hampshire in June. 

"The subject has engaged the contemplation of many. The 
gentlemen of Connecticut have seriously meditated on it. We*^ 
suppose the British provinces in Canada and Nova Scotia, at 
no remote period, perhaps, without delay, and with the assent 
of Great Britain, may become members of the Northern Con- 
federacy. Certainly that Government can only feel disgust at 
our present rulers. She will be pleased to see them crestfallen. 
She will not regret the proposed division of the Empire. A 
liberal treaty of Amity and Commerce will form a bond of 

*" Lodge's "Cabot," p. 19. 

" Henry Adams' "New England Federalism," p. 164. 
■•^ Italics my own. 

** This refers to the Junto members in Congress as mentioned above, 
from time to time. They discussed it a great deal as we will see later. 

34 



union between Great Britain and the Northern Confederacy 
highly useful to both."" 

Mr. J. Q. Adams, a member of Congress says that during 
the Spring Session of 1804, the author of the written plan was 
named to him by Mr. Tracy /^ And that he was a distinguished 
citizen of Connecticut. "I was told,'' says Adams, "it origin- 
ated there ; had been communicated to individuals at Boston, 
at New York, and at Washington."*® The plan, according to 
Mr. Adams,*' had three alternatives of boundary, "i. If pos- 
sible, the boundary was to extend to the Potomac, 2. to the 
Susquehanna, 3. to the Hudson. That is, the Northern Con- 
federacy was to extend, if it should be found practicable, so 
as to include Maryland. This was the maximum. The Hud- 
son, that is, New England and a part of New York, was the 
minimum. The Susquehanna, or Pennsylvania, was the middle 
term." The plan, if possible, was evidently destroyed. 

In the life of Mr. Plumer*^ by his son, various extracts are 
given from his contemporary journals and correspondence, 
exhibiting special and definite particulars of the plan of dis- 
union, and of interview in reference to it with its projectors 
and followers. "I recollect and am certain," says Plumer, 
"that on returning early one evening from dining with Aaron 
Burr, Mr. Hillhouse, after saying to me that New England 
had no infifuence in the Government added that, 'The Eastern 
States must and will dissolve the Union, and form a separate 
government, and the sooner the better. But I think the first 
man who mentioned the subject to me was Samuel Hunt, a 
Representative from New Hampshire. He conversed often 
and long upon the subject. He was very eager for the North- 
ern Confederacy and thought it could be eflfected peaceably and 
entered into a detailed plan for effecting it. I often talked 
with Robert Griswold. He was, perhaps, the most eager of 
all whom I talked with, and was practically of the same opinion 
as Mr. Hunt. Next to Griswold, Uriah Tracy conversed most 

** Pickering AIss., January 19, 1804; Adams, "New England Fed- 
eralism," p. 338; appendix. This indicates that they expected the pro- 
posed Confederacy to be recognized by Great Britain. A treaty of 
Amity and Commerce would, otherwise, be impossible. 

'° Undoubtedly Robert Griswold if such a plan was written. 

"Randall's "Jefferson," vol. 3, P- 636, appendix. 

" Ibid., p. 636. 

** Plumer was yet in Congress and in sympathy with the Junto. 

35 



freely and fully regarding the plan. It was he who informed 
me that Hamilton had consented to attend a meeting of select 
Federalists at Boston, in the autumn of 1804. Mr. Pickering 
told me of the plan while we were walking around the north- 
erly and easterly lines of the city."*'' 

Under date of November 23, 1806, Plumer mentions in his 
journal, that in the winter of 1804, Pickering, Hillhouse, and 
himself dined with Aaron Burr ; that Hillhouse, "unequivocally 
declared that it was his opinion that the United States would 
soon form two distinct governments"; that "Mr. Burr con- 
versed very freely on the subject"; "and the impression made 
on his (Plumer's) mind was, that Burr not only thought a 
separation would not only take place but that it was necessary." 
Yet," he says, "on returning to my lodgings and critically ana- 
lyzing his words, there was nothing in them that committed him 
in any way."''*" These quotations leave us no longer in doubt as 
to where the conspiracy began and that there were a great many 
plans being made. These plans, we regret to say, were hatched 
in the National Congress and by some of its ablest members. 

The Junto seems not to have overlooked the fact that con- 
siderable expense would be attached to their plan and Robert 
Griswold, according to Mr. Pickering,"'^ made a careful examin- 
ation of the finances. He found that the States above men- 
tioned, to be embraced by the Northern Confederacy, were then 
paying as much, or more, of the public revenues as would dis- 
charge their share of the public debt due those states and 
abroad, leaving out the millions given for Louisiana. In the 
same letter he assumes that our mutual wants would render a 
friendly and commercial intercourse inevitable; that the South- 
ern States would require naval protection of the Northern 
Union, and that the products of the former would be important 
to the navigation and commerce of the latter.''" 

Many of the Junto believed that separation could be brought 
about peaceably. Indeed, they had a perfect right to think so 
for the right of secession had not been very seriously question- 
ed at this time. The Constitution was in its infancy and no 

■"Plumer's "Life of Plumer," p. 298; Adams' "Federalism," p. 106; 
Randall's "Jefferson," vol. 3, appendix. 
^ Randall's "Jefferson," vol. 3, p. 637, appendix. 
" Letter to Cabot. Adams' "Federalism," p. 338. 
'' Ibid., p. 33S. 

36 



one seems to have had a very clear idea just what it could be 
made to cover. Secession, therefore, was not held to be an un- 
pardonable sin. It was spoken of frequently on the floors of 
Congress and no one was censured for such utterances. 

But in case forceful means should be necessary they looked 
to General Hamilton as military leader.'^ We can scarcely be- 
lieve that Hamilton had consented to this, for he disapproved 
of the plan. It is very likely, however, that the Junto expected 
it of him and he may have given his consent. It is interesting 
to reflect whether or not, in view of his expressed sentiments 
on the subject of separation, he would have listened to a call 
to lead forces of a Northern Confederacy against the South 
and West, if such a crisis had arisen. Would his patriotism 
have wavered when weighed in the balance against his military 
ambitions? Eager as he was for military glory, the prospects 
would not have been sufficiently alluring to satisfy his ambitious 
desires. He wished to lead a great National army and noth- 
ing less would have sufficed. 

Therefore, with their plans fairly complete, the Junto began 
again, without any open organization, to apprise their innocent 
constituents of these plans and to ascertain, as far as possible, 
just what percentage could be depended on to follow them into 
the proposed haven of rest. Their mode of enlightenment was 
a secret-* correspondence. These letters are full of the vilest 
denunciations of Jefferson and his policies. Any one who may 
desire to read them will be convinced that our present-day 
politicians have tongues and pens unusually discrete when com- 
pared to this minority wing of that once dominant party. 

The Federal editors, who under the late administration were 
devoted to the principles of passive obedience and who en- 
forced the necessity of unqualified submission to the Constituted 
authorities, were soon imbued with Juntoism. These same edi- 
tors, therefore, in 1803 were in the true spirit of disorganiza- 
tion, vilifying the President and administration and further 
encouraging the people to resist the Constituted authorities."-'^ 

" Adams' "Federalism," p. 147 ; Plumer's "Plumer," p. 303 ; .\dams 
to Plumer : "Much of my information was collected from Mr. Tracy." 

" Lodge's "Cabot" ; Hamilton's "Republic," vol. 3 : Adams' "Fed- 
eralism," for much of the correspondence. 

'^^ American Mercury, April 9. 1803; see also. The Pittsficld Sun: The 
Statesman, The RcpuhUcan Spy, The Boston Gazette, The Democrat, 
The Essex Register, and many other papers might be cited filled with 
the bitterest possible articles. 

27 



One of their bitterest thrusts was leveled against Jefferson 
for unseating their "midnight judges." They claimed that he 
was surely destroying the Constitution with an eye single to his 
own glory and to that of the common folk.^'' This proved to 
be always an effective argument, even though called from the 
past. The Louisiana purchase, of course, was proclaimed to 
be a destruction of that balance of power, established and 
ordained, once and forever, by the framers of the Constitution. 
The new Constitutional Amendment, they purported to believe 
was solely a party amendment designed to keep Republican in 
office to the complete exclusion of Federalists. But perhaps 
the weightiest argument of all was what they termed the "Vir- 
ginia influence." This influence, they claimed, supported every 
suggestion of Jefferson's and could only be broken up by a dis- 
solution of the Union.''" 

The Vermont Centind, November 21, 1804, has the follow- 
ing to say regarding the popularity of the recent amendment: 
"The recent excellent amendment to the Constitution proves 
that Mr. Jeft'erson's Administration has been the most popular 
that the United States has ever experienced. Fourteen of the 
seventeen free and independent states adopted the Amendment, 
some unanimously, too." No possible objection could justly 
have been found to an amendment simply providing that it be 
specified which candidate was to be President and which Vice- 
President. The other points need no comment. 

But, the lack of a regular leader had not been the only 
obstacle in the way of success for the Junto's plans. There 
were some of the members who agreed that New England was 
unprepared and that there must be a more definite and wide- 
spread complaint before she could act. George Cabot said : "It 
is not practicable without the intervention of some cause which 
would be very generally felt and distinctly understood as 
chargeable to the misconduct of our Southern masters ; such 
for example, as a war with Great Britain. ^^ manifestly pro- 
voked by our rulers. "^^ 

'^^ Adams' "Federalism," pp. 331-336. 

" Schouler, vol. 3, pp. 68-71; Von Hoist, vol. i, p. 187; Hamilton's 
"Republic," vol. 7, p. 772. See particularly Pickering's letter to Lyman ; 
Adams' "Federalism," p. 343. 

^* Does this mean that in the event of war New England would cast 
strength with Great Britain? We will see much more of this in the 
next chapter. 

'■' Lodge's "Cabot," p. 341 ; Adams' "Federalism," p. 346. 

38 



Tapping Reeve"" commented sarcastically upon their "unpre- 
paredness" as pointed out by Cabot and suggested that, if the 
members in Congress would come out with glowing comments 
upon the ruinous tendencies of the measures of the Adminis- 
tration before the sitting of the Legislatures, that would bring 
about all the "preparedness" necessary.*'' In the same letter 
Reeve suggested a very ingenious plan by which a foundation 
might be laid for separation. "I do not know," he says, "in 
what manner this separation is to be accomplished unless the 
Amendment *^- is adopted by three-fourths of the legislatures, 
and rejected by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecti- 
cut upon the last ground taken by Delaware. "^^ In such case, 
I can see a foundation laid." Presumably he meant by this, 
that if several of the New England States would reject it as 
not having been passed by a two-thirds vote of Congress, the 
people would immediately fall in line and clamor for seperation. 
The problem confronting the Junto was how to get the people 
prepared and willing to follow them. However firmly con- 
vinced that their plan was good, they found many a "doubting 
Thomas" and this work progressed slowly. 

It has been shown that the Junto believed it to be absolutely 
necessary that New York be made the central point of the 
Confederacy. The question, therefore, was how to get control 
of it. They must capture New York and find some one to lead 
in the final dash. Pickering, although never wanting in argu- 
ment, was not the person, they felt, to place at the head of 
their Confederacy. At length they saw a chance to elect Aaron 
Burr Governor of New York, and, in this way, establish the 
man they most despised as leader and ruler of the Northern 
Union. 

The silent but persistent determination of Jeft'erson's friends 
to force Burr into retirement produced much bitterness in New 
York, where the Vice-President had a nest of young followers 
gaping for office. There was no efifort to re-nominate Burr 

*" A lawyer and judge in Connecticut; a brother-in-law of Burr, and 
well acquainted with the Junto schemes. 

" Adams' "Federalism," p. 342 : see note added by Pickering. 

*^ Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution. 

^ That the amendment had not been passed by two-thirds of the en- 
tire number composing the respective Houses. 

39 



for the Vice-Presidency. Governor Clinton, the new nominee 
for the office, decHned to be re-nominated as New York's Gov- 
ernor. It became necessary, therefore, to choose a candidate 
for the Governorship. The regular Republican nomination fell 
upon Chief Justice Lewis."* The opposing faction of the same 
party nominated Aaron Burr, with the confident expectation 
that the Federalists would cast their votes for him. 

It was the work of the Burrites in New York that opened 
the way for the Junto. Before Congress adjourned, therefore, 
the Eastern separatists conferred with Burr regarding the sit- 
uation in New York.**^ They believed that Mr. Burr ought to 
commit himself definitely to other policies if they should con- 
sent to throw all of their weight into the contest and elect him. 
The Junto knew that they could not, even in conjunction with 
the New York Federalists, elect a Governor because the last 
election had exhibited so large a Republican majority.'^'' But 
they saw a chance, in conjunction with the Burrites, to elect 
Mr. Burr, thereby scoring two points : ( i ) The capture of New- 
York for the center of their Union; (2) the election of a man 
whose only virtue, in their opinion, was that he w^as unscrupu- 
lous enough to do their bidding. 

Mr. Griswold made an engagement to call on Burr in New 
York after the close of Congress. Griswold wrote Wolcott 
saying: "Burr has expressed a wish to see me, and to con- 
verse, but his situation*'^ in this place does not admit of it ; and 
he begged me to call on him in New York. Indeed, I do not see 
how he can avoid a free and full explanation with Federal 
men."*^* According to Hamilton's Republic"'* the interview took 
place between Griswold and Burr at the home of the latter in 
New York, on the 4th of April. And with the same cautious 
non-committal he had shown during the Presidential election, 
Burr stated that he must go on as a democrat to obtain the 
Government ; that, if he succeeded, he would administer it in 

** Mr. Lansing was first nominated but declined, and Judge Lewis 
was nominated. 

** Schouler, vol. 3, p. 70. 

""Adams' "Federalism," p. 354; Griswold to Wolcott. Hammond's 
"Political Hist, of X. Y.," vol. i, p. 202. 

" He refers to his position as Vice-President. 

""Adams' "Federalism," p. 354; note the expression "Federal men" 
not party. 

*" Hamilton's "iRepublic," vol. 7, p. 786. 

40 



a manner that would be satisfactory to the Federalists. In 
respect to the affairs of the Union Burr said: "The Northern 
States must be governed by Virginia, or govern Virginia, and 
there is no middle course." 

In the letter, referred to above, Griswold adds : "He (Burr) 
speaks in the most bitter terms of the Mrginia faction, and of 
the necessity of a Union at the Northward to resist it ; and it 
may be presumed that the support given to him by Federal 
men would tend to reconcile the feeling of those Democrats 
who are becoming dissatisfied with their Southern masters." 
Thus they were forced to accept Burr in a "Just as I am'" atti- 
tude. It w^as too great a chance, however, to be recklessly flung 
aw^ay. So the Junto aid and the influence were tendered Burr 
with hope pitted against fate. 

The question then arises, by what great process of juggling 
patriotism and statesmanship, could a few New England Fed- 
eralists control an election in New York? By what great 
stretch of moral principles could they relieve their consciences 
after thrusting such a character as Aaron Burr upon New 
York as Governor? We will again quote Robert Griswold for 
our answer. "Although the people of New England," he says, 
"have not on ordinary occasions. '° a right to give an opinion 
in regard to New York, yet upon this occasion we are almost 
as deeply interested as the people of that state can be. If any 
other project can be fallen upon which will produce the effect 
desired of creating a union of Northern States, I should cer- 
tainly prefer it. ... The election of Colonel Burr is the only 
hope which, at this time presents itself of rallying in defense of 
the Northern States." "^ 

Mr. Pickering in his attempt to influence Rufus King'- wrote 
from Washington, March 4. 1804: "The Federalists here, in 
general, anxiously desire the election of Mr. Burr to the Chair 
of New York ; for they despair of a present ascendancy of the 
Federal party. Mr. Burr alone, we think, can break your Dem- 
ocratic phalanx ; and we anticipate much good from his success, 

'"This was certainly an extraordinary one. If Burr had been placed 
over a Northern Confederacy, the sectional questions, would probably 
have been settled early in our history, and under different circumstances. 

'^Adams' "Federalism," p. 354; Hamilton's "Republic," vol. 7, p. 782. 

"■ King and Hamilton were never persuaded to adopt a secession 
policy. 

41 



Were New York detached (as under his administration it 
would be) from the Virginia influence, the Union would be 
benefited. Jefferson would be forced to observe some caution 
and forbearance in his measures."" Pickering evidently 
meant that the Northern Union would be much more likely to 
succeed. 

There is one figure that we must not lose sight of who was 
able, at any moment, to stay or forward the plot of the Junto. 
Alexander Hamilton leading a quiet life at his home in New 
York w^as watching the movement of the New England Fed- 
eralists with an eagle's eye, ready to swoop down and devour 
their dearest plans if they did not accord with his ideas. Ham- 
ilton was the man whose yea or nay, at this critical moment, 
could decide the destiny of the Union. There is not the 
slightest doubt that his and only his leadership, could rally 
the New York people to action. Once he had defeated Aaron 
Burr and the Junto ; would he do it again ? 

About the time the nominations were being made in New 
York a few leading Federalists held an informal conference at 
Albany to consider the expediency of either nominating a Fed- 
eralist candidate, or if this should not prove expedient, of sup- 
porting either of their opponents' candidates.'* Hamilton 
knowing the intention of the Junto, and viewing it as a question 
far beyond the politics of New York, was present. '^^ To his 
mind it was a question of the preservation or of the dissolution 
of the Union. He read, therefore, a paper of very great im- 
portance before the conference, entitled : "Reasons why it is 
desirable that Mr. Lansing,"*' rather than Colonel Burr, should 
succeed.""" The point which Mr. Hamilton made in this paper 
was that Mr. Burr had always pursued the track of Democratic 
politics. This, he had done either from principle or from cal- 
culation. If the former he would not at that time change his 
plan W'hen the Federalists were prostrate. H the latter, he 
certainly would not relinquish the ladder of his ambition, and 
espouse the cause of a weaker party. He went further, hov\'- 

" Pickering Mss., March 4, 1804. 

"■'Hamilton's "Republic," vol. 7, p. 770; Von Hoist, vol. i, p. 198. 
'''•Ibid. 

'" Lansing had not yet resigned the nomination. 

'' Hamilton's "Republic," vol. 7, p. 770. The paper is here printed in 
full. 

42 



ever, and said that, "It would probably suit Mr. Burr's views to 
promote this result, to be the chief of the Northern Portion ; 
and, placed at the head of the State of New York, no man 
would be more likely to succeed." Hamilton contended that 
Burr would not be true to his promises, if he had made any 
to the Federalists, but when they had elevated him to power in 
New York, he w^ould desert them, and simply use his office to 
form a greater Democratic wing in the North, in opposition 
to the Jefferson wing, in the hope of being the next President. 

In spite of Hamilton's protests the Burr press, two days after 
Burr's nomination as Governor, opened with the following: 
"Burr is the man who must be supported or the weight of the 
Northern States in the scale of the Union is irrecoverably lost. 
If the southern and particularly the Virginia interests, are al- 
lowed to destroy this man, we may give up all hope of ever 
furnishing a President to the United States."" 

Jefferson had divined their scheme from the coalition of the 
Eastern Federalists with the Burrites ; but it gave him no un- 
easiness. "The object," he said, "of the Federahsts is to divide 
the Repubhcans, join the majority, and barter with them for 
the cloak of their name ; ... the price is simple. . . . The 
idea is clearly to form a basis of a separation of the Union.'"'" 

What a deplorable and dangerous state of affairs ! The 
Junto supporting Burr as the only hope of carrying through 
their Northern Confederacy plot ; the New York wing of the 
Republican party, or the Burrites, supporting him in opposition 
to Virginia influence, as the only ^hope of ever furnishing a 
President to the United States. One contemplating a dissolu- 
tion of the Union with Burr as leader of the northern section ; 
the other hoping, at some future day, to elect this dangerous 
man President of the United States. Either scheme, if suc- 
cessful, would have been disastrous. Colonel Burr's prospects, 
too, seemed to assume an imposing prospect. His Republican 
friends in New York, though not numerous, were talented, in- 
dustrious and indefatigable in their exertions ; and in view of 
Federal support, his chances were very encouraging. 

The election was carried by the united friends of the admin- 

'"'Thc Morning Chronicle. February 22, 1804; Hamilton's "Republic," 
vol. 7, p. 777- 
''Jefferson's Works, vol. 4, P- 542. 

43 



istration, Lewis receiving 35,000 votes, while Burr received 
28,000.*" Mr. Burr undoubtedly received a very considerable 
number of Republican votes ; he failed, however, in consequence 
of the defection of a portion of the Federal party. This ele- 
ment of the Federal party was controlled and influenced by the 
paper read at Albany, just before the nomination, by Alexander 
Hamilton. It was New York's portion of the Federal party 
which the Junto could not control. Hamilton's prophecy, that 
no reliance could be placed in Burr, had very great weight with 
this class of voters. It was that class whom the Federalists 
claimed should have nothing to do with the Government. 

It was Mr. Hamilton's paper, therefore, coupled with the 
sound judgment of the New York Federalists, that defeated 
Aaron Burr. This was the second time that Hamilton had come 
to the rescue of his country and defeated Aaron Burr ; twice 
he had defeated the "Essex Junto" ; but it was the last defeat 
for Burr's bullet was soon to place his most bitter rival beyond 
the vale of political strife. Hamilton was the barrier over 
which the dizzy ambitions of the Union breakers could not 
climb. Burr'r political defeat, followed by Hamilton's tragic 
death, therefore, checked the Eastern Confederacy plot in its 
first state of development. This proved to be the greatest blow 
that had yet befallen the Junto and its members sank into deep 
despair. Unfortunately, however, there was a later growth 
from the same root. The plan of separation was not abandon- 
ed-^ but only allowed to lie dormant for a while. "Not dead 
but sleepeth." 

The returns of the national election proved beyond question 
that the Eastern Federalists had no national issue against the 
administration which had been peaceful, popular, and very suc- 
cessful. Jefferson and Clinton swept the country with ease in 
November carrying the greater part of New England, Massa- 
chusetts unexpectedly included.^- Pinckney and King did not 
get an electoral vote in their respective states. Connecticut, 
Delaware, and two votes from Maryland gave them 14 against 
162 for Jefferson and Clinton.^'' The election proved very clear- 

** Hammond's "Political Hist, of X. Y.," vol. i, p. 208; Schouler, vol. 
3, P- 70. 

" Tracy to Plumer, Adams' "Federalism," p. 106. 

*■ Schouler, vol. 3, p. 75. 

^ Ibid., appendix electoral table. 

44 



\y that Mr. Griswold's fears were not without foundation when 
he said : "Whilst we are waiting for the time to arrive in New 
England, it is certain that Democracy is making daily inroads 
upon us, and our means of resistance are becoming less every 
day."^* The Republicans were daily creeping up to the very 
doors of the Junto; Vermont and Rhode Island having gone 
Republican in the State elections, and the National election be- 
ing so decisive, it showed up the plotters in a light that needs 
no comment and is severe enough. 

Throughout the period from 1800 to 180S, Massachusetts 
changed her method of choosing her electors three times. Gov- 
ernor Strong, in 1800, sanctioned a resolve to have the Legis- 
lature choose the electors of the President and Vice-President. 
A republican addressing the electors in 1805, declared that this 
sanction had been influenced by the Junto for the purpose of 
excluding a Republican from the Presidency.*^ In 1804, the 
Junto discovered that electors had best be elected by general 
ticket in order to preserve the Constitution and the liberty of 
the people.**^ But again in 1808, the spirit of the Constitution 
and the rights of the people required that the choice should be 
transferred from the people to a federal majority in the Legis- 
lature, which majority being the Essex Junto, could by no 
means represent the character of the State. ■^' 

The remarkable facility with which the Junto could destroy 
systems without substituting anything, reminds one of the 
words of a pious Connecticut priest : "Even hogs," said he, "can 
root up a garden ; but they can never plant one.'' 

" Adams' "Federalism," p. 345, appendix. 

^ Political Tracts, 1805-1812. Compiled from original documents. 

*" The Democrat, Boston, June 15, 1808. 

*' Ibid. 



45 



CHAPTER IV 

The Embargo of 1807 and the Junto's Plans for a 
British Alliance 

After the overthrow of Aaron Burr in New York and the 
death of Alexander Hamilton, the plotters were without a lead- 
er other than Mr. Pickering, whose leadership consisted prin- 
cipally in the preparation of illogical but optimistic documents. 
Therefore, we find the Northern Confederacy plan lying dor- 
mant for quite a long period. In fact, the next secession 
movement which presents itself is in connection with Jeffer- 
son's Embargo Act of 1807. 

The Junto, mortified as they had constantly been since 1798 
in national affairs, though influential on their own grounds, 
felt the humiliation of being gradually cast aside by an ex- 
panding democracy. More states were in full attune with the 
Jefferson administration during this protracted Junto sleep than 
ever before. Merchants without distinction of party had but 
of neutral frauds.^ Mr. Pickering, in a letter to Mr. Lowell 
many years later, says: "Much against his will, and contrary 
to his own better judgment, Mr. Cabot was placed at the head 
of a committee which, in 1806, subscribed and sent to Wash- 
ington the remonstrances drawn by Lloyd - against the British 
doctrine concerning neutral trade. He signed it simply as a 
merchant." ^ 

The Junto men decried the Administration for mean temper 
and a reliance upon moral suasion to protect American com- 
merce, and yet , strangely inconsistent, they counselled to 
tamest submission to British search and impressment. When 
the Chesapeake affront came, like a blow in the face, to peace 
and neutrality, their first thought was, how to persuade others 
to bear it meekly. 

Every reader of history is more or less familiar with Jef- 

* Lodge's "Cabot." p. 315. 

'James Lloyd later succeeds J. Q. Adams in U. S. Senate. 

' Lodge's "Cabot," p. 542. 

46 



f erson's embargo ; but, in order to hinge the next secession 
movement upon it (where it certainly belongs), it will be neces- 
sary to explain its purpose, as frequent references to it must 
be made throughout this chapter. Jay's treaty had not re- 
moved very many of the well grounded grievances of the 
United States against Great Britain and, by degrees, new ones 
were added to the old. The prospect of a more friendly un- 
derstanding seemed to be diminishing as time went on. This 
was due partly to the fact that Jefferson would have all or 
nothing and partly because Great Britain, despite occasional 
advances, grew more overbearing every day. 

Napoleon found herein a convenient pretense to assert 
"might before right," and ere long both France and England 
began to disregard the laws of recognized neutrality. There- 
fore, England's declaration of a blackade of May i6, 1806, and 
the Order in Council of November 11, 1807,* on the one hand 
and Napoleon's Berlin decree of November 26. 1806, and his 
Milan decree of December 17, 1807.'' on the other, made it 
quite impossible for neutral seafaring nations to sail uninjured. 
Neither interest nor self respect, therefore, would seem to war- 
rant the United States quietly acquiescing in this violence. But 
there were still two very strong parties pulling in opposite 
directions. The Federalists wished to center our warth upon 
France and thus induce England to adopt a more favorable 
policy toward us. The administration party would hear noth- 
ing of war ; they did not want to fight France and feared war 
with Great Britain. 

Jefferson and the Congressional majority, therefore, soon 
came to the conclusion that it was necessary to take a very 
decided stand. So on the i8th of December the President 
recommended an embargo." Congress immediately passed 
such a bill as recommended and it became a law December 21, 
1807.'^ This measure closed all American ports to all foreign 
commerce wnth the hope that it would show France, and es- 
pecially England, that we were really a national power, and 

*Von Hoist's "Constitutional Hist, of U. S.," vol. i, p. 200. 

' Ibid. 

'Randall's "Jefferson," vol. 3. p. 242. 

^Von Hoist's "Constitutional Hist, of U. S.," vol. i, p. 202. Moore's 
"Int. Law Digest," vol. 5, pp. 1445-1454. gives the above mentioned de- 
crees in full. 

47 



force them to recognize and respect our commerce and 
seamen. 

Lord Eldon, Chancellor of England, said in Parliament: 
"The Order in Council of November ii, was intended to make 
America, at least sensible to the policy of joining England 
against France.^ Although we have no authority except the 
newspapers of the day, it seems a fair confession of the British 
Government's views and we have no reason to question its 
truth since the Chancellor of England is a member of the 
Privy Council, and called the keeper of the King's conscience. 

But the Administration did not wish to join England against 
France. It did not wish to join France against England. It 
only wished to maintain a strict neutrality, aiding neither the 
one or bowing down to the other. Sir William Scott was presi- 
dent of the British Prize Court from 1806 to 1807, and moulded 
their doctrines and decisions in conformity with the view's of 
his Government. Under the pretence of supporting what were 
claimed to be British maritime rights, he extinguished many 
of the just rights and privileges of other nations.^ 

It is not necessary to say that the embargo fell as heavily 
upon New England as did the Highway robbery of Great 
Britain. New England certainly was, ov^^ing to her commerce, 
punished most severely by both England and America. 
France and England were robbing their ships and impressin^^ 
their seamen. The United States forbade their ships going 
to sea and the ships of these nations from landing in their 
ports, both of which were severe upon the New England com- 
merce. But her motives were very different, and should have 
appealed to New England patriotism accordingly. It would 
have been next to impossible for the United States to have at- 
tempted any means of redress without striking New England 
harder than any other portion of the young nation. That does 
not argue that the embargo was the wisest method of coercion. 
It does not say that it was a successful measure. It is simply 
explaining a situation which had to be met. We have seen 
how the United States Government attempted to meet it, hence 
it only remains for us to discover how the Embargo was sup- 
ported by New England and the Junto. 

It is very gratifying to be able to say that while New Eng- 

' The Essex Register, Aug. 31, 1808. 
' Perkin's "Late War," p .21. 

48 



land has gasped and struggled against the increasing hardships 
imposed by France and England, and afterwards, against the 
constraints of the embargo which pressed heavily upon her, 
yet most of her sons remained loyal and consonant with the 
general determination of this country to fight rather than sub- 
mit to the injustice of Europe. Bound up in commerce, and 
not being able to divert her capital on such sudden notice, sub- 
mission to the embargo policy was to her somewhat like suicide 
to prevent dishonor. But while thus suffering, the thread of her 
immediate interest was skillfully separated from that of the 
nation into which it was corded, and the Northern Confederacy 
remnant began to lead her whither they had sought to lead 
before. The embargo was like the "bloody shirt" of later times 
and it was not waived without effect. 

This time the movement was far more secret than before. 
In fact, it is so secret that very little is known about it. Their 
plans are distinct, however, and, giving them the advantage of 
every doubt, there is still sufficient evidence to show that the 
Northern plotters, in this stage of our narrative, conceived and 
gave life to a plan by which they could resist the embargo on 
Constitutional grounds ; withdraw from the Union by refusing 
all aid and obedience ; peaceably if they could, by means of 
civil war if they must; and ally themselves with Great Britain. 
British America was of course to join the confederacy. This, 
therefore, is the next step toward a Northern Confederacy, 
beginning soon after the pas\sage of the embargo, living 
throughout the years 1808 and 1809, and expiring at the pas- 
sage of the Non-intercourse Act. 

Before taking up the real agitation favoring separation and 
a British Alliance there is an interesting convention in con- 
nection with the approaching national election which should 
not be overlooked. It is interesting and important for two 
reasons: i. It was the first attempt at a national nominating 
convention. 2. It was organized and made a reality by a secret 
movement of the "Essex Junto." A letter appearing in the 
Boston Gazette, June 2y, 1808, discussing the embargo con- 
cludes : "All the grandees^" say, we must do something, or 
our party will be ruined. The Federalists talk of supporting 
Clinton for President, because he's against the embargo ; and 
Madison is in favor of it ; but they say we must do something." 

"The reference is to the Junto. 

49 



The great question before the FederaHst party was to de- 
feat Madison. How was this to be done? Some method was 
necessary which would be binding on the whole party. They 
had found the caucus ineffective for party harmony in 1800. 
In 1808, moreover, there were too few Federalists at Wash- 
ington to make a caucus practicable. A convention of dele- 
gates seemed to be the only alternative.^^ The Republican 
nominees were Madison for President, and George Clinton for 
Vice-President. Indications soon proved that the Clintonians 
were bidding for Federalist backing. Clinton disapproved of 
the embargo, or he let it be understood that he did, because he 
had hoped for the Presidential honors for himself.^- Here 
was the Federalists' opportunity. Clinton had endorsed their 
policies ; why not support him instead of going down to defeat 
with candidates of their own? 

It may be stated that the early state elections had not been 
wholly without encouragement, although the Republicans had 
succeeded in electing a Governor in Massachusetts. New 
York retained a majority of Federalists in her assembly, and 
Vermont and Connecticut were solid for the Federalists.^^ 
These results were brought about mainly through the skillful 
use, by Junto members, of a potent electioneering weapon fur- 
nished them by Jefferson — the embargo. They were quick to 
see the possibilities of this weapon for arousing the people 
and did not fail to use it. "The embargo will touch their bone 
and their flesh, when they must curse its authors," wrote 
Pickering." 

With these considerations in their minds, the Junto began 
in earnest the work of deciding on the moot question of the 
Presidential nomination. Details of the action of Federalist 
leaders in Massachusetts, are preserved in two letters from 
Christopher Gore to Rufus King.^^ The Federalist legislative 
caucus at Boston appointed a committee of twenty, which in 
turn appointed a committee to correspond with the Federal- 

^'■Am. Hist. Rev., No. 4, July, 1912, pp. 744-745. 

"J. D. Hammond's "Political Parties," N. Y., vol. i, p. 269; "Am. 
Hist. Rev.," No. 4, July 1912, p. 746. 

" Ibid. 

"Adams' "Federalism," Pickering to Rose, p. 366; "Am. Hist. Rev.," 
No. 4, July 1912, p. 747. 

"These letters of June 8 and 16, are in King's "Rugus King," vol. 5, 
pp. 100-102. 

SO 



ists in other states on the business of the next election of 
President and Vice-President, and for the purpose of ascer- 
taining their weight and concerting arrangements for the elec- 
tion.^" The committee consisted of George Cabot, H. G. Otis.. 
President of the Senate, Christopher Gore, member of the 
House, Timothy Bigelow, Speaker of the House and James 
Lloyd, a Boston merchant who had just been chosen Adams' 
successor in the United States Senate. ^^ All were Boston men 
and all of Junto persuasion, recognizing Pickering as their 
leader. 

The committee held a meeting on June lo, when after a 
considerable debate, it was deemed advisable to propose a 
meeting of Federalists, from as many states as could be sea- 
sonably notified, at New York the last of that or the beginning 
of the next month. ^^ Here, then, is the original proposition for 
a would-be national nominating convention. ^^ The idea, in this 
instance, was revolutionary in party machinery, both from a 
Federalist and from a national point of view. Nominations 
by conventions of self-chosen delegates was necessarily revo- 
lutionary and despotic. The people were bartering away their 
franchise in promising to support candidates chosen by self- 
delegated bodies. 

The work of securing a national representation in the con- 
vention was carried on by personal communications from Bos- 
ton, New York, and Philadelphia. The Massachusetts 
committee of correspondence at their meeting on June lO, sent 
Livermore-° to New Hampshire, Bigelow to Vermont, and Otis 
to Rhode Island, to arrange for some person, or persons, to 
represent their states in the New York Convention.-^ The 
committee, in this manner, sent men into every Federal strong- 
hold possible. 

On August 15, 1808, and the third Monday, this embryo 

"Gore to King, July 16, King's "King," vol. 5, p. loi. 

" Adams had resigned his seat in Senate on account of friction be- 
tween Junto members and himself. 

"King's "Rufus King," vol. 5, p. lor. 

" The curious student will search in vain for very much information 
on this subject. A few letters by the Junto is all the material to be had 
on this movement. 

^"Originally a New Hampshire man; member of Congress from the 
Essex North district, 1807-1811. 

"King's "King," vol. 5, p. loi : Am. Hist. Rez'., July 1912, p. 750. 

51 



national convention met in New York.-- Its existence could 
not even be guessed from the Federalist journals, but the 
coming together of so many noted Federalists did not escape 
the eyes of the Republican press. The Boston Independent 
Chronicle, August 22, says : ''On Friday last a detachment from 
the Essex Junto passed through Hartford, on their way to 
New York, there by agreement, to meet the other Choice 
Spirits, for the purpose of appointing a king to rule over us." 
Where the session was held can only be a matter of conjecture. 
We do not know. 

Eight states were represented, says Mr. S. E. Morison, "New 
York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut. 
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and South Carolina."" The number 
and personnel of the members is also largely a matter of con- 
jecture; but it is certain that Massachusetts sent three mem- 
bers because we have a letter from Cabot to Pickering, August 
10, 1808, stating: "The gentlemen from this place are Mr. 
Otis, Mr. Gore, and Mr. Lloyd.""* We do not know the num- 
ber of representatives. We have no direct evidence as to how 
the delegates were chosen but there can be little doubt that 
they were selected by exclusive committees. We have extracts 
from letters by Hare of Philadelphia and Benson of New York 
to the Corresponding Committee indicating that such a method 
was employed.-^ 

Of the proceedings of the 1808 Convention we know no 
more than the bare results ; but the whole question of whether 
Clinton should be supported or whether separate nominations 
should be made, was so thoroughly threshed out in the corres- 
pondence that we cannot mistake its object, and the trend of 
the discussion. We know, too, that Charles C. Pinckney was 
nominated for the office of President and Rufus King for the 
office of Vice-President. Gore wrote King from Boston, June 
16. 1808, saying: "Our people are anxious to support a Fed- 

^ Cabot to Pickering, Aug. 10, says : "On Monday next a conference 
will be held in New York, for the purpose of settling on a Presidential 
Candidate." "August 15, was date agreed upon," says Morison; see 
Am. Hist. ReiK, July 1912, p. 753. 

" Morison quotes this information from the Otis Mss., giving as a 
quotation the above from the N. Y. Committee to the Charleston Com- 
mittee, September 1808. See Am. Hist. Rev., July 1912, p. 753. 

" Lodge's "Cabot," p. 397. 

^ Am. Hist. Rev., July 1912, pp. 748-52. 

52 



eral candidate from New York instead of one from South 
Carolina ; provided there's the possibiHty of success."-'' 

Pinckney's nomination was due largely to the hope of cap- 
turing his native state and to the wish of avoiding the stigma 
of sectionalism.-' And the above was about the only opposition 
to his nomination after Clinton was ruled out. 

The Convention having been summoned and conducted in 
secret, was to be extremely discreet in announcing its nomin- 
ations. The original plan for the public announcement, and the 
reasons for making an eleventh hour change are given in a 
letter from Thomas Fitzsimon's of Philadelphia to Gore, Otis, 
and Lloyd, the Massachusetts delegation. "When we separa- 
ted at New York," it says, "it was understood that the result 
of our Conference, should not be made public until the event 
of the election in Pennsylvania-^ should be made known and 
until the Conferees from that state should deem a publication 
of it proper. Circumstances have since occurred which, in 
their opinion, rendered any publication of that kind inexpedi- 
ent, and led them to conclude that the safer course would be 
to let our friends in each state announce the candidates to their 
fellow citizens, at such time, and in such way as they should 
think best. We were led to this conclusion from having ob- 
served something like a jealousy in our friends at having 
a nomination so important decided upon by so small a number 
as we were, and without any special authority for the purpose. 
Hence we deem it most prudent that it should appear the result 
of general sentiment rather than the choice of a few to bind 
their party. "'-^ 

An article in the Boston Gazette, October 20. entitled, 
"Grand Federal Nomination." makes the following statement : 
"We have the satisfaction to learn, from information collected 
from every part of the Union, that one common sentiment 
prevails among the Federalists, with regard to candidates for 
the first offices in the National Government ; that the men se- 
lected by the approving voice of the whole American party, 
to preserve the Union, and to prevent a calamitous war, are for 
President Hon. C. C. Pinckney. for \'ice-President Hon. R. 

-* King's "Rufus King," vol. 5, p. lor. 

"Am. Hist. Rev., July 1912, p. 758. 

^ State election. 

'' Printed in the Am. Hist. Rev., July 1912. p. 759. 

53 



King. In Massachusetts, a formal announcement of the nom- 
ination of these great parties has been delayed for the sole 
purpose of collecting the sentiments of the great body of Fed- 
eralists — the true Americans in other states." In several lines 
above we notice that, "These men were selected by the approv- 
ing voice of the whole American party," but, "A formal an- 
nouncement had been delayed to collect the sentiments of the 
great body of Federalists." "Consistency, thou art a jewel." 
There was no formal announcement, therefore, until two or 
three weeks before the election, although it was pretty general- 
ly known before that time.^° 

The frankness of the letters quoted and referred to in con- 
nection with the Convention makes comment almost superflu- 
ous, but the writer cannot refrain from making a few thrusts 
at this select body of "well born" and congenial gentlemen who 
were chosen by their friends to settle, in a quiet and leisurely 
manner, the great questions which so deeply concerned the 
party. The body of voters had absolutely no voice in the 
convention's deliberations. This 1808 conference (or conven- 
tion) compares favorably with other Federalist machinery of 
the time. It was based on the old dictum: "We, the 'well 
born,' must govern without the slightest co-operation by the 
people. We do not ask their advice but their implicit obedience 
is required. They are to vote for candidates nominated they 
know not how, because it was thought best, ordained and es- 
tablished by the Federal fathers, that we, the choicest spirits, 
should lead them. This machinery failed for the same reason 
that the party failed. It ought to suppress and to curb public 
opinion rather than to guide and lead it. 

The secret convention, representing only the leaders, was 
again employed in 1812, after which it passes out of existence 
with the Federalist party. It remained for the Democrats of 
the thirties to discover that nomination by convention could 
be made a more satisfactory method. 

./ The first gun of the Massachusetts, and incidentally, of the 
presidential campaign, was Pickering's violent attack on the 
administration policy in his letter to Governor Sullivan, Feb- 
ruary 16, 1808.^^ In this most extraordinary letter^- by Pick- 

'^ Ibid., many letters and journals are quoted from in this number of 
the Rcviczv in support of this statement. 
"Lodge's "Cabot," p. 380, Pickering confidentially to Cabot. Adams' 

54 



ering we have a very good duplicate of Hamilton's attack upon 
the Adams' administration. The burden of Pickering's pen is 
that Jefferson withheld papers from the Emperor of France 
which should be made public. That the withholding of such 
papers was responsible for the passage of the embargo, is the 
point he makes, or hopes to make. He says : "Had these 
papers been honorable he would have been anxious to disclose 
them. That they are of an entirely dift'erent nature, that they 
are dishonorable, that they are ruinous to our commercial in- 
terests, and dangerous to our liberty and independence, we are 
left to infer. Above all, let him unfold our actual situation 
with France." In short, Mr. Pickering tells his people that 
Jefferson is pushing them into a war with Great Britain by 
withholding papers, which if disclosed, would satisfy every 
one that France is the common enemy. No attack upon Jeffer- 
son could have been more eff"ective than this, and it was care- 
fully calculated to stir up resistance in the commercial states. 

It is still more wonderful how the Junto attempted to justify 
England's impressment policy. To quote again from Picker- 
ing's letter: "The British ships of war agreeable to a right 
claimed and exercised for ages, — a right claimed and exercised 
during the whole of the administrations of W^ashington, 
Adams, and Jeft'erson, — continue to take some of the British 
seamen and with them a small number of ours, because of the 
difficulty to always distinguish an Englishman from an Ameri- 
can."''^ Of course England would not take Americans but 
through mistaken identity. 

We cannot but wonder in that written and received authority 
we would be most likely to find a justification of the rights 
Pickering claims for Great Britain's conduct? In what usage, 
except her own will, could it be found? It can imply nothing 
but the right to search neutral vesesls upon the high seas in 
time of peace. "We consider a neutral flag,'' says Monroe, 
January 5, 1804, "on the high seas as a safeguard to those 
sailing under it." Whether we consult the Law of Nations 
or the dictates of justice, no pretext can be found for the 
British impressments from American ships on the high seas. 

"Federalism," p. 193-197: Hildreth's "Hist, of the U. S.," vol. 3, pp. 
76-77; King's "Rnfus King," vol. 5, p. 87, Gore to King. 

^^ Original copy in "Political Tracts," 1805-1812; Boston Gazette. July 
25, 1808. 

^Niles' Register, vol. 4, p. 23,2, speech of Gov. Strong. 

55 



Mr. Pickering waited until it was ascertained that the Rose 
Mission^* would fail, and then wrote his letter to the Gov- 
ernor of Massachusetts, denouncing the embargo and calling 
for joint resistance against it by the Commercial States.^-^ It 
was both in form and substance an appeal from the Govern- 
ment of the Union to the Government of the State of Massa- 
chusetts, with no other purpose than to stimulate the power 
of the separate state to a resistance of force against a law of 
the Union; and it contained the first proposal for a concerted 
move by the commercial states for the same purpose.^'' It was 
the plan of 1804 reproduced by the same individual who had 
then appealed to Hamilton to lead the Junto through the "deep 
waters." As in 1804, also, a few plain spoken letters, for- 
tunately preserved from the flames, disclose to posterity plots 
which statesmen of that day denounced without proving. What 
the English called "Colonel Pickering's Party'"'^ certainly ex- 
isted at this time and its leader, the ex-Secretary and Massa- 
chusetts Senator, tunneled like a mole to undermine a mountain. 

The embargo, therefore, was yet only an experiment, and 
a temporary precaution, so to speak, when Pickering put quill 
to a lengthy diatribe against the Administration, and hurled a 
firebrand upon the stage. One copy of this paper was ad- 
dressed to Cabot to go to the printer in case Governor Sullivan 
failed to act as his publisher.^* The Governor, be it to his 
honor, refused on the ground that it was, "A seditious and disor- 
ganizing production. "^^ More than that, Pickering says : "The 
letter was rudely returned. ''^"^ Mr. Cabot, in his reply to 
Pickering's request that he superintend its publication, said : 
"This day will issue from the press a copy of your letter to. 
the Governor, which he dared not to communicate. Five thou- 
sand copies will be struck in pamphlet form and it will be 
reprinted in the newspapers. Probably, you will receive a 
pamphlet with this letter. This excellent address is zvell cal- 

*'Mr. Rose, a special Envoy, despatched to the United States, to dis- 
cuss through the winter the Chesapeake affair with Madison, and then 
do nothing. 

''Adams' "Federalism." p. 195. 

'" See above references to letter. 

^^ Schouler, vol. 2, p. 181. 

''Lodge's "Cabot," p. 367; Hildreth, vol. 3. P- 77- 

='» Hildreth, vol. 3, P- 77- 

*" Lodge's "Cabot," p. 380. Pickering to Cabot. 

S6 



ciliated to rouse us from our apathy; and, if we are fit for 
anything but slavery,*^ all New England miyht be brought to 
act with effect."*- 

The letter was unexampled and in principle unconstitutional. 
The Senate of the United States is a branch of the legislature ; 
and each senator is a representative, not of a single state but 
of the whole Union. His vote is not the vote of his state, but 
his own individually; and his constituents have not even the 
power of recalling him, nor of controlling his constitutional 
action by their instructions. "This was the first instance in 
the history of the Constitution," says J. Q. Adams, "where 
a Senator of the United States had made such an appeal to the 
government of a state by whose legislature he had been chosen. 
Its principle was itself a dissolution of the Union, — a transfer 
of the action of the national government to that of the separ- 
ate state upon objects exclusively delegated to the authority 
of the Union."*^ 

In 1828, when Adams was President, a body of Massachu- 
setts Federalists addressed a letter to him demanding proof of 
such statements as had been given out regarding the Junto 
twenty years before. Adams replied that he had never doubt- 
ed that the object of Mr. Pickering was the ultimate substitu- 
tion of a Northern Confederacy, in alliance with Great Britain 
for that of the United States ; and that he had good reasons 
for believing that James Hillhouse,** then Senator from Con- 
necticut, concurred in these views.*'' Adams was at that time 
(1808) Senator with Pickering from Massachusetts, but later 
resigned his position and supported the embargo. 

To his letter, a step, even more reprehensible, succeeded. 
Pickering, being at Washington during the period of Rose's 
negotiations, held secret communications with that individual, 
his object being plainly to stiffen this Chesapeake diplomat, 
who bore terms disgraceful enough, and through him to as- 

" Slaves to the Republican administration and to the South. Italics 
my own. 

" Lodge's "Cabot," p. 380. Italics my own. 

^Adams' "Federalism," p. 195. 

"Pickering admits as much in a letter to Cabot March 11, 1808. See 
Lodge's "Cabot," p. 380. 

*' Adams' "Federalism," p. 107; His second reply to the Mass. Feds. 
The first reply begins on p. 46, same work. Correspondence complete, 
as far as we know. 

57 



sure the English ministry that they had only to let us alone in 
order to find that the embargo would curse its authors.*" "You 
have only to travel to Boston," he assured him, "to find that 
our best citizens consider the interests of the United States 
interwoven with those of Great Britain, and that our safety 
depends on hers. Men, thus enlightened, could they but con- 
trol the measures of their own government, would give them 
a dircctiom uiutually beneficial to the tzvo nations}' And it was 
for this purpose chiefly that I have more than once expressed 
to you my hope that you would see them in person, by traveling 
through the country as far as Boston.** Given up as the people 
are to strong delusions, to believe lies, it seems impossible that 
the general deception should continue much longer."^^ In other 
words, "I am doing everything in my power to poison the 
minds of the New England people against the Jefl:'erson Ad- 
ministration, and resorting to this secret and underhand rela- 
tion with you, in the hope that you will prepare your home 
government for an alliance in case New England can be per- 
suaded to revolt." 

Pickering went so far as to hand over to Rose his private 
letters from Cabot and King for confidential perusal. '° He 
sent him Sullivan's letter explaining why he (Governor Sulli- 
van) did not publish Pickering's letter; he sent Boston news- 
papers and kept Rose informed generally as to public opinion 
in New England. ^^ He impressed upon Rose the social and the 
political importance of the Essex Junto, to which he belonged, 
and tried to show how the brakes could be put on after the 
close of "Jefferson's reign,"'- even though Mr. Madison should 
succeed, which was extremely problematical. 

When Rose left the United States, Pickering besought him 
to keep up a correspondence, designating his own nephew, 
Samuel Williams, a London merchant, and formerly Consul, 
as a suitable person through whom their letters could be deliv- 

*° Private correspondence between Pickering and Rose. See Adams' 
"Federalism," pp. 366-373; Ibid., pp. 46-107; Schouler, 3.1S1.2. 
" Italics my own. 
*^ He refers to the Junto. 

■"* Adams' "Federalism," p. 366. Pickering to Rose. 
'° Ibid., p. 366. 
'' Ibid., p. 369. 
" Ibid., p. 367. 

S8 



ered.^^ Rose indulged this request after his return home,^* 
but whether he imparted ministerial confidence in return, or 
whether he simply used adroit flattery and encouragement 
while more subtle agencies were employed, we cannot say. In 
the light of subsequent events, however, we are safe in assum- 
ing the latter. 

In order to give some idea as to how Mr. Rose met Picker- 
ing's advances I will quote from a letter written just after 
he had received the letter sent him from King: "I avail my- 
self thankfully of your permission," he says, "to keep that gen- 
tleman's letter, which I am sure will carry high authority 
where I can use it confidentially, and whither it is most im- 
portant that what I conceive to be right impressions should 
be conve3'ed. It is not to you that I need protest that rancor- 
ous impressions of jealousy or ill-will have never existed here; 
but it is to be feared that at some time or another the ex- 
tremest point of human forbearance may be reached. The 
night of delusion appears to vanish rapidly ; may no clouds 
obscure the rising sun. If the day breaks fairly, it will be 
daylight, not only to yourselves, but to dear and important 
and universal objects, seem more clearly through the darkness 
which blinds so many, by none, or more forcibly than by your- 
self."^^ This quotation needs no comment, for the beauty of 
its construction and the patriotic impulses which alone could 
prompt such an utterance are able to stand alone. 

"Rejoice with us," says a Boston correspondent to the St. 
James Chronicle,^^ "our efforts are at last, I am delighted to 
believe, about to succeed. By the papers^'*' you will see that 
Massachusetts has yielded good fruits for our labor and money. 
We have hard work to do yet. but the prospect of success gives 
us new vigor. It was a master stroke, your sending Rose here 
to amuse this Government, to gain time and multiply the means 
for our last resort — the election. Everywhere things look 
promising. Your Government has no need to give an inch." 

Another article'"'^ dated London, June 28, 1808, furnishes 

'^Ibid., p. 370. 
" Schouler, vol. 3, p. 182. 

" Adams' "Federalism," p. 2)^";. Rose to Pickering. 
°^ The Democrat, Boston, June 18, 1898. The above copied from the 
St. James Chronicle. 

" Papers sent by the Junto for the English ministry to peruse. 
"* The Democrat. Boston, June 8, 1808. 

59 



us the English view of the situation. It says : "The last files 
from Boston and other papers from the United States give us 
most pleasing accounts of Federalism and its growth. That 
Federalism is gaining ground in \^ermont, New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts, and New York, in particular, indeed, seems 
to assure the season close at hand when we shall reap a glori- 
ous reward for all the labor and expense lavished in that 
country." 

If we can credit these newspaper articles, and their testi- 
mony will be well supported later, we must believe that Pick- 
ering and Rose were not the only interested parties. Indeed, 
Pickering is only the mouthpiece of the Junto, but that 's 
giving him the leadership, when we remember that talk, "Yea, 
much fine talk" was the greater part of their programme. It 
can only be a matter of conjecture what amount of influence 
was exerted by Rose. He undoubtedly gave Canning'^ the 
cue for managing the American situation.'''^ Pickering we may 
believe used the Rose information'*^ in furthering fomenting 
discontent in New England against the embargo. The one 
thing that made the embargo grind so severely upon the sus- 
ceptibilities of New England was the charge so constantly 
reiterated and more especially after the failure of the Rose 
mission, that Jefferson's policy was being constantly dictated 
by Napoleon, in preparation for a French alliance. 

The question, therefore, naturally arises : Whence this in- 
jurious calumny? J. Q. Adams insisted that it came from the 
eastward, though British authorities over the border in cor- 
respondence with citizens of Massachusetts.**- Mr. Adams says 
that he told Jefferson in a confidential interview, March, 1808, 
that he (Adams) had seen a letter from the Governor of Nova 
Scotia**" which made the charge, obviously intended to propa- 
gate the calumny that Mr. Jefferson and his Administration 
were corruptly subservient to the influence of France ; and 
that this influence was exercised to kindle a war between the 
United States and Great Britain, and to effect a revolution 
in the government of the United States, and the conquest by 

^ British Secretary for Foreign Affairs. 
**Schouler, vol. 3, p. 182. 

^ Some of the letters which passed are missing, hence we do not know 
very much about the intrigue. 
°^ Adams' "Federalism," p. 112. 
"^ Niles' Register, vol. 35, p. 138. 

60 



France of the British possessions on this continent.''^ Mr. Jef- 
ferson stated that the interview took place and repeated the 
conversation as he remembered it, agreeing with Adams. ^'^ His 
information is further substantiated by the "Henry Mission'' 
of which we shall speak later. John Lowell makes an analy- 
sis"® of the correspondence between the American Administra- 
tion and that of France and Great Britain, with an attempt to 
show the real causes of failure on the part of America. In this 
remarkable analysis the Jacin leaders, Jefferson and Madison, 
were governed all the time by French instructions. He ac- 
counts in this way for the great injustice shown Great Britain, 
and quotes Mr. Jeft'erson as saying to the Emperor: "Repeal 
so much only of your degrees as relate to us, or give assurances 
and explanations to the same effect, and we will declare war 
against your enemy." But to Great Britain he says : Repeal all 
your orders — repeal them in their entirety and we will restore 
you to your old place — nothing more." Such volcanic out- 
bursts from Mr. Lowell were intended to have and could have 
but one influence, namely, to inflame the people with an intense 
hatred for the administration. Partiality to France instead of 
Great Britain was the nearest way to the hearts of many of the 
New England people. He tells us in No. 7, "That the only 
cause for the embargo is to be found in the demands and 
threats of France."®^ It is to be regretted that Mr. Lowell does 
not give some idea of the nature of these threats which so 
greatly moulded the Jacobin policies. We know of a French 
sympathy in America, and have spoken of it. but we must 
admit that Mr. Lowell's statements, or some of them at least, 
were made to order. Only a man embarked on a mission of 
evil could blaspheme his own government and praise that of 
Great Britain for the purpose of causing a revolt. 

Mr. James Russell, in a series of Articles signed "falkland," 
and published in the Columbian Centincl, beginning September 
10, 1808, discusses the subject in a very different manner. 
These articles are entitled, "A Separation of the States," and 
attempt to show by statistics that New England's area, popu- 
lation, and resources are sufficient to enable her to maintain 

"Adams' "Federalism,' pp. 112-113. 

'^ Ibid., p. 136. Jefferson's statement. 

** "Tracts on American Politics," 1795-1808. Nine documents. 

*" These papers were numbered from i to g. 

61 



an independent government. With New York included, as 
a matter of course, in the Confederacy, a comparison is made 
between that section and the Southern States, particularly be- 
tween Massachusetts and Virginia. With the amount, increase, 
and kind of population ; with the number of acres, population 
per acre, and value per acre, he gets a ratio of about 2 to i in 
favor of New England. That is. New England has grown pro- 
portionately about twice as fast as the South. He concludes, 
therefore, that with the State of New York added to New 
England the Confederacy could probably maintain a population 
equal to that of Great Britain and certainly greater than that 
of Spain. 

Mr. Russell gives the following reason for his articles : "The 
policy of Virginia demands nothing less than the sacrifice of 
greater interests of New England as the only condition on 
which she will adhere to the Union. She must and will govern 
us, with a policy that will forever cripple and destroy us, or 
separate from us and leave us to pursue our own systems, 
supported by our own resources. These I have attempted to 
estimate to assist the people of New England in forming their 
judgment of the consequences of such an event." 

This was the most dignified argument oflrered to the people 
of New England in regard to a new government ; but perhaps 
the dignity of it was overbalanced by its narrowness. He 
either lost sight of, or chose to ignore, the fact that the Great 
West and Southwest would sooner or later join the southern 
dynasty if New England should withdraw into a little corner 
of the Continent. Therefore, he must have made the argument 
with the belief, at least, that British America would readily 
join the New England Union, and the Great Britain herself, 
would immediately join in alliance, otherwise the Confederacy 
would have been impossible. 

This brings us to the election of 1808 and we w^ill pause 
long enough to notice its results. We know that Madison re- 
ceived more than two-thirds of all the electoral votes, 122 out 
of 176. The Federalists, as we have seen, renominated Pinck- 
ney and King ; and they carried no electroal college outside of 
New England, excepting that of Delaware. In New England 
state elections, however, Federalism met with much greater 
success because of its opposition to the National policy. Em- 
bargo candidates were defeated in New Hampshire, Rhode 

62 



Island, and \'ermont. In this section, the opposition grew 
constantly more defiant. Pickering's Public Letter with its bold 
imputations and base motives made itself felt at this election. 

There were many other ingenious arguments advanced by 
the Junto to show why Madison ought not to have been elected. 
Perhaps the most amusing one was that he was ruled by his 
wife,*^^ and. one this account, was unfit for such high office. 
To this we can only say that it is a pity that this lady was not 
taken and kept as a hostage in New England during the good 
behavior of her husband. He might then have performed the 
duties of a distinguished statesman, as ably as he had in the 
Revolution before these alarming petticoats were put on. But, 
of course, the embargo was the one great argument advanced 
by Federalist opposition. 

The Boston Gazette of July 25, 1808, says : "The Democrats 
have brought themselves and the country into this vile scrape, 
and now they shift the blame to Pickering and his set. They 
stigmatize the Federalists as traitors for their opposition to 
the wonder-working embargo ; but all their cunning and all 
their wisdom consists in hiding their fooHsh and fatal 
measures." 

It is not just, however, to say that all radical and violent 
statements were confined to Federalist papers and Federalist 
writers. Republicans were wholly convinced that the Essex 
Junto was doing much more harm than the embargo and they 
did not fail to assert as much. For example, the Baltimore- 
American, June II, 1808, makes the following comment: 
"Since by artifice, chicanery, and juggling, the Essex Junto 
succeeded in throwing the legislative power of Massachusetts 
into the hands of a faction, disposed to be subservient to a 
foreign power, their first act of legislation was an anathama 
against the embargo. They admit it to be the duty of govern- 
ment to cultivate peace and amity with all nations ; and yet 
denounce the only measure capable of enforcing its existence. 
They deny that Congress has the right to pass such a law and 
yet admit that a temporary' embargo, on some occasions may 
be necessary. The British Monarch invites our citizens to in- 
fringe our laws by formal proclamation, and the Legislature 
of Massachusetts organizes itself in formal opposition to the 
general government as far as words will go, in order to furnish 

''^ The Columbian Detector. Boston, Xovember 18, 180S. 

63 



our enemies sustenance and comfort while they continue their 
depredations." 

The opinion spread that the embargo was unconstitutional, 
and, if so, that it ought to be resisted. This was a Junto doc- 
trine and the people were beginning to embrace it as though it 
were true. In town-meeting addresses the language of petition 
gave place to remonstrance, and that of remonstrance to threat ; 
"passive obedience and non-resistance," said one of these in 
November, "can no longer be considered a virtue."®" 

The people were constantly instigated by the Junto'° to for- 
cible resistance against the embargo, and jury after jury ac- 
quitted the violators of it, upon the ground that it was un- 
constitutional, assumed in the face of a solemn decision of the 
district court of the United States.'^ A separation of the 
Union was openly advocated in the public prints and a Conven- 
tion of delegates of the New England States, to meet at New 
Haven, was intended and proposed. "- 

At the beginning of the final session of Congress, November, 
1808, Hillhouse of Connecticut, and Lloyd and Pickering, of 
Massachusetts introduced resolutions for the immediate repeal 
of the embargo. '3 Added to this was a long exposition of east- 
ern troubles ; and it became very clear to the supporters of the 
measure that the Junto was clearly but surely inviting trouble. 

Mr. Giles and several other members of Congress wrote 
J. Q. Adams (then a private citizen in Boston) informing him 
of the Junto measures and solicited his advice upon the sub- 
ject."* Adams replied frankly, and in confidence, as he had 
been addressed, and had recommended, most earnestly, the 
substitution of a non-intercourse bill for the embargo. He 
urged that a continuance of the embargo much longer would 
certainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by the Leg- 
islature, and probably by the judiciary of the state." That to 
quell that resistance, if force should be resorted to by the 
government, would produce a civil war ; and in that event, he 

^ Schouler's "Am. Hist.," vol. 3, pp. 184-185. 

'"Niles Register, vol. 35, 138. 

" Ibid. 

" Ibid. 

" Schouler's "Am. Hist.," vol. 3. P- 185; Von Hoist, vol. i, p. 226, note. 

"Niles Register, vol. 35, P- 138; Adams' "Federalism," p. 46. 

'"Ibid., also see Von Hoist, vol. i, pp. 222-223, note. 

64 



had no doubt the leaders of the party would secure the co- 
operation with them of Great Britain. That their object was, 
and has been for several years a dissolution of the Union, and 
the establishment of a separate confederation. "This," he says, 
"I know from unequivocal evidence, although not proveable 
in a court of law ; and that in the case of civil war, the aid of 
Great Britain to effect the purpose would be as surely resorted 
to, as it would be indispensably necessary to the design."^" 

In support of Mr. Adams' position let us notice the opinions 
of some gentlemen who are not so likely to be discredited, 
owing to Mr. Adams' relations with the Junto. DeWitt Clinton 
made the following statement, January 31, 1809, in a speech 
in the Senate of New York : "It is perhaps known to but few, 
that the project of a dismemberment of this Union is not a 
novel plan, growing out of the recent measures of the Govern- 
ment, as has been pretended. It has been cherished by a num- 
ber of individuals for a series of years. A few months before 
the death of a distinguished citizen,^' it was proposed to him 
to enlist his great talents in the promotion of this nefarious 
scheme."'^ 

In a letter to Joseph White, Jr., dated Washington, January 
4, 1809, Joseph Story" makes this statement: 'Tf I may judge 
from the letters I have seen from the various districts of Massa- 
chusetts, it is a prevalent opinion there — and, in truth many 
friends from New England States write us, that there is great 
danger of resistence to the laws, and great probability that the 
Essex Junto have resolved to attempt a separation of the 
Eastern States from the Union ; and if the embargo continues, 
that their plan may receive support from our Yeomanry."^" 
Again on January 9, 1809, we find Mr. Story writing Samuel 
Fay in this regard. He says : *Tt seems almost impossible that 
Massachusetts will ever come to this scheme ; yet, I confess 
that I have great fears when I perceive that the public prints 
openly advocate a resort to arms, to sweep away the present 
embarassment of commerce." ^^ 

'"'Niles' Register, vol. 35, p. 138; Adams Federalism, p. 46; Von Hoist, 
vol. I, pp. 222-223, note. 
" Alexander Hamilton. 
™ Plumer's "Life of Plumer," p. 302. 

" Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
*" Story's "Life of Story," vol. I, p. 174. 
^Ibid., p. 182. 

65 



Mr. Adams' statements would seem to be sufficiently sus- 
tained, by the quotations we have used, but in order to show 
that Mr. Jefferson himself was alarmed, we will quote a few 
lines from a letter written to Mr. Randolph January 2, 1809. 
It reads in part : "The Monarchists of the North have been 
able to make so successful use of the embargo as to have feder- 
alized the South Eastern States and endangered New York, 
and they now mean to organize their opposition by the regular 
powers of their State Governments. The Massachusetts legis- 
lature which is to meet the middle of the month, it is believed, 
will call a convention to consider the question of a separation 
of the Union, and to propose it to the whole country east of the 
North River, and they are assured the protection of Great 
Britain." *^ In the same letter he goes on to say that, "We 
must save the Union ! But our difficulties do not end here ; for 
if war takes place with England we have no security that she 
will not offer neutrality and commerce to New England and 
that the latter will not accept it." These men saw plainly the 
situation and knew that something must be done to check the 
onward march. That is why non-intercourse was urged by the 
friends of the Administration at this time. 

But, before the discussion of a non-intercourse bill got fairly 
under way, Congress passed the "Force Bill" January 9, 1809.^'^ 
This bill is a familiar bit of history and every one knows, per- 
haps, that it was passed simply to enforce the embargo. The 
embargo was only in theory a national measure. American 
commerce was centered in the East. It could be, in reality, 
therefore, nothing but a sectional measure, and nothing leads 
to rebellion so surely as sectional discontent. But as we have 
said any check attempted on Great Britain's impressment policy 
would have fallen most heavily upon this section. 

The newly enacted Force Bill, therefore, was ushered into 
the presence of a people whose spirits already boiled with 
rebellion and discontent. What did it mean? It meant simply 
this : each Governor was requested and expected to appoint 
some officer of the militia of known respect for the laws, in 
or near each port of entry of his State, with orders when ap- 
plied to by the Collector of the District, to assemble a sufficient 
force of his militia and to employ them efficaciously to main- 

^ Mass. Hist. Papers, vol. I, p. 130, seventh series. 

*^ Annals of Cong., loth Cong., 2nd Sess., 1808-1809, p. 1798. 



tain the embargo. It was therefore, a radical measure at this 
time, and it only added fuel to the flame.^* 

The people in the Eastern Section were now stirred, to the 
satisfaction of the Junta, and memorials were sent to the 
State Legislature declaring the embargo unconstitutional and 
the raising of troops to enforce it a menace to civil liberty. 
Anticipating the Force Act, Otis and Gore wrote Quincy and 
Pickering, who were in Congress, to ask what to do next.**' In 
the letter sent by Otis to Quincy we have the first mention of a 
Hartford Convention. "Will you," he adds, "talk over this 
subject with Our Little Spartmi Band, and favor me in season 
with the result of your collected wisdom?"^*' Pickering's reply 
to Gore is of the most vital interest and in no sense should it 
be omitted. "Pray look into the Constitution, and particularly 
into the loth article of the Amendments. How are the powers 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to be main- 
tained, hut by the respective states judging for themselves 
and putting their negative an the usurpations of the general 
government ?" ®^ 

What was this but Virginia and Kentucky Nullification and 
by the very men who had then (1796) so bitterly condemned 
it? Prominent judges and theologians even began, at this 
time, to foment a New England insurrection.^^ Dr. Dwight, 
it is said, preached a sermon using the text : "Wherefore, come 
out from among them, and be separate, saith the Lord." 

The legislatures, particularly of Massachusetts and of Con- 
necticut, sent remonstrances to the National Congress and in 
no uncertain terms expressed their opinions of these Acts. The 
downfall of this forcible embargo must be attributed to the 
panic which New England produced at Washington. No 
doubt the careworn JefTerson never forgot how these New 
England towns pelted and pattered resolutions upon his head. 
We must also credit this Junto panic with the change of the 
date for the next Congress from May 22, to March 4. Jeflfer- 

" Schouler, vol. 2, pp. 190-193 ; Sullivan's "Public Men of the Revo- 
lution"; Adams' "Federalism." 
*" Adams' "Federalism," pp. Z7Z-27S- 
''Adams' "Federalism," p. 375; Otis to Quincy. 
"''Ibid., p. 27^. The italics are my own. 
** Schouler, vol. 2 ; Adams' "Federalism." 



07 



son thought*^ that by promising a repeal of the embargo he 
could keep the East quiet until that time, but his supporters in 
Congress saw very plainly that the Union would not be pre- 
served that long. The fourth of March was set, therefore, for 
the assembling of Congress and the embargo was repealed on 
the ninth. "The alternative," said Jefferson later, "was repeal 
or Civil War." 

It is necessary now to consider the "Henry Mission" before 
attempting any discussion of "What might have been." 

At the beginning of the year 1809 the Governor General of 
Canada, J. H. Craig, opened communications with one John 
Henry,^'' then residing at Montreal, asking this gentleman if 
he would undertake a secret and confidential mission to 
Boston.^^ Mr. Henry assured the Governor that he would 
undertake the mission and would be ready to start before his 
instructions could be made out.^- 

The instructions which Mr. Craig gave Henry, dated Febru- 
ary 6, 1809, and marked "most secret and confidential," throw a 
bright and illuminating light upon the British-New England 
Alliance, which we are trying to reveal. We will, therefore, 
make some quotations from this document and see if the real 
object of the mission is not disclosed so that there can be no 
doubt. 

"The principal object which I commend to your attention," 
says Mr. Craig in these instructions, is the endeavor to obtain 
the most accurate information of the true state of affairs in 
that part of the Union, which, from its wealth, the number of 
inhabitants, and the known intelligence and ability of several 
of its leading men, must naturally possess a very considerable 
influence over, and will indeed, probably lead, the other Eastern 
States of America, in the part that they may take at this im- 
portant crisis.^^ The Federalists, as I understand, have, at all 

" See Correspondence, Mass. Hist. Collection, vol. i. p. 135, seventh 
series. 

""Very little seems to be known about Mr. Henry. Niles Register, 
vol. 2, states that he was a Captain in the Provincial Army, of the 
U. S. 1798. Fisk's speech, p. 28, same reference says: "he was an 
Englishman but had long resided in this country. He had evidently 
been in the service of Great Britain, also." 

** Am. State Papers, For. Rel., vol. 3, p. 546; Niles' Register, vol. 
2, p. 20. 

''Ibid. 

"Italics are my own. 

68 



times, discovered a leaning to this disposition, and their being 
under its pecuHar influence at this moment is the more to be 
expected, from their having ill-founded ground for their hopes 
of being nearer the attainment of their object than they have 
been for some years past. It has been supposed that if the 
Federalists of the Eastern States should be successful in ob- 
taining that decided influence which may enable them to direct 
the public opinion, it is not impossible that, rather than submit 
to a continuance of the difficulties and distress to which they 
are now subject, they will exert that influence to bring about 
a separation from the general Union. The earliest informa- 
tion on this subject, may be of the greatest consequence, to 
our Government, as it may also be that it should be informed 
how far, in such an event, they would look up to England for 
assistance, or be disposed to enter into a connection with us." ^* 

Mr. Craig further instructed Henry to get all the information 
possible in passing through Vermont. He inclosed credentials 
which read : "The bearer, Mr. John Henry, is employed by me, 
and full confidence may be placed in him for any communica- 
tion which any person may wish to make to me in the business 
committed to him, etc."®'^ They then agreed upon a cipher 
for carrying on a secret correspondence, using the letters, A.B. 
for Henry's signature.^*^ 

When the matter came up before the House three years later 
Mr. Fisk, in a very pointed speech declared that, "Erskine,^' 
while here, at that very time, was in the same business that 
Henry was sent to perform." ^« He goes on to affirm that 
Erskine wrote a letter, to his knowledge, in which he informed 
his home government that he (Erskine) "Had endeavored by 
the most strict and diligent enquiries into the views and 
strength of the Federal party, to ascertain to what extent they 
would be willing and able to resist the measures of the party 
in power, and how far they could carry the opinions of this 
country with them in their attempt to remove the embargo."^" 
Mr. Fisk quotes from other letters written by Minister Erskine 

^Ibid. The etitire correspondence as submitted by Henry is printed 
in the two references above. 
■ ** Am. State Papers, vol. 2, p. 547 ; Niles' Register, vol. 2, p. 20. 
^ Ibid. 

"British Minister to America. 

"' Niles' 'Register, vol. 2, p. 28. Copy of Fisk's speech printed here. 
■" Ibid. 

69 



that it would seem without making further quotations, that we 
are justified in assuming upon the evidence given that Rose, 
Craig, and Erskine, were all working under instructions from 
their home Ministry. 

Of course, it is clear that the Junto and British sympathizers 
were halting upon "unpreparedness" as we used that term in 
our last chapter. How far would public opinion and the votes 
of New England support them ? The embargo was being used 
just as the "bloody shirt" of later times, and to what extent the 
people were being influenced and were prepared to act it was 
a part of Mr. Henry's business to find out. His instructions 
not only covered this point but every other possibility that sug- 
gested itself. 

Supplied, therefore, with everything but manhood, Henry 
began his journey to Boston. According to instructions his 
first stop was Burlington, Vermont, from which place he ad- 
dressed two letters to Mr. Craig.^°" The impressions and 
information gained in this State were highly satisfactory to the 
scheme. He says : ''The people are so disgusted with the 
embargo and the Administration that if Massachusetts should 
take a bold step toward resisting the execution of these laws, 
the people of Vermont would lend their hearty co-operation." 

The next document we have from Henry is dated Amherst, 
New Hampshire.^*'^ In this State he finds the sentiment pretty 
much as in Vermont. He adds the bit of information, how- 
ever, that the United States will not go to war with Great 
Britain unless they can force His Majesty's Government to 
commit some act of hostility, thereby placing the responsibility 
upon Great Britain. This declaration suggests quite a new line 
of thought. We had not looked upon the acts of the Admin- 
istration as intended to provoke further hostility from Great 
Britain, but we are glad to record this as an opinion of Henry's 
that he found such to be true in New England. He concludes, 
however, by saying: "It is highly probable that other means 
will be employed to excite England to such an act." ^''- 

We next follow Henry into Boston where he remains for 
about three months watching and reporting the trend of affairs 
to Mr. Craig. In a document of March 7, 1809, he sums up 

^""Am. State Papers, vol. 3, p. 547- 

"^Am. State Papers, vol. 3, p. 548; Niles' Register, vol. 2, p. 22. 

^''Ibid., p. 549. 

70 



the situation, as it is revealed to him there, as follows: "I have 
now ascertained, with as much accuracy as possible, the course 
intended to be pursued by the party in Massachusetts that is 
opposed to the measures and politics of the administration of 
the General Government. I have always given an opinion that 
a declaration of war is not to be expected ; but, contrary to all 
reasonable calculations, should the Congress possess spirit and 
independence enough to place their popularity in jeopardy by 
so- strong a measure, the Legislature of Massachusetts will give 
the tone to the neighboring states, will declare itself permanent 
until a new election of members, invite a congress, to be com- 
posed of delegates from the Federal States, and erect a separate 
government for their common defense and common interests."^ 

The Congress would probably begin by abrogating the of- 
fensive laws, and adopting a plan for the maintenance of the 
power and authority thus assumed. By such an act they would 
be in a position to make or to receive proposals from Great 
Britain. Scarcely any other aid would be necessary, and per- 
haps none other required, than a few vessels of war from 
Halifax station to protect the maritime towns from the little 
navy which is at the disposal of the National Government. 
What permanent connection between Great Britain and this 
section might grow out of the civil commotion, no one is pre- 
pared to describe ; but it seems that a strict alliance must result 
of necessity." ^ -* 

The Non-intercourse law of March 9, 1809, raised the em- 
bargo with all foreign states except France and England. This 
law quieted the cry for separation and practically crushed the 
Northern Confederacy plan for the time being. Mr. Henry's 
mission to Boston loses interest to our narrative, therefore, and 
we must soon follow him back to Canada. He thought it 
necessary, however to remain some weeks longer to sketch 
passing events. He did so and made some ver\^ interesting 
observations after the above date. 

For instance, on March 13, he writes: 'T lament the repeal 
of the embargo, because it was calculated to accelerate the 
progress of these states toward a revolution that would put an 

'<« Niles' Register, vol. 7, P- iSS- See article entitled "New England 
Convention," and having for its subject the above few lines: "Should 
the Congress possess the spirit and independence enough," etc. It is 
article No. i of a series. 

'" Am. State Papers, vol. 3, p. 549- 

71 



end to the only Republic that remains to prove that a Govern- 
ment founded on political equality cannot exist in a season of 
trial and difficulty, or is calculated to insure either security or 
happiness to a people."^"' 

Again on April 13, he reports much fear as existing among 
men of talents and property that an alliance with France and 
a war with Great Britain is intended by the Administration. "I 
am convinced," he says, "that in such a measure not one of the 
new England States would be a party to it." ^^'^ And in a final 
report given after his return to Montreal he makes this interest- 
ing observation : "The present hopes of the Federalists are 
founded on the probability of a war with France ; but, at all 
events, this party is strong and well organized enough to pre- 
vent a war with Great Britain." Later in the same report he 
adds : "It would now be superfluous to trouble Your Excellency 
with an account of the nature and extent of the arrangements 
made by the Federalist party to resist any attempt of the Gov- 
ernment unfavorable to Great Britain}^'' They were such as 
do great credit to their ability and principles." ^°* 

It is very significant of the Junto's secrecy that Henry in all 
of his reports to Craig does not mention a single name, and 
it certainly is unfortunate not to have one item from those who 
told Henry about the Federal arrangements to resist the Admin- 
istration. We cannot doubt, if we give any credit to these 
reports, that Henry was constantly in communication and con- 
sultation with members of the Junto. It cannot be shown that 
he ever mentioned a single source of information, and yet we 
cannot believe that he gathered this information from mere 
observation. He was evidently in touch with the Junto and 
must certainly have been warned not to divulge the names of 
his informants. 

Soon after Henry's return to Canada he naturally opened 
communications with the Governor General in regard to a just 
compensation for his services. Mr. Craig, apparently had not 
considered paying Henry anything for his services while on 
this mission, although he said in his first letter that, "Such a 
service would give him a claim, not only upon the Governor 

'"''Ibid., p. 5SO. 
"^Ibid., p. 551- 
'" The italics are my own. 
'"'Ibid., p. 552. 

72 



General, but upon his Majesty's Ministry.""'^ A correspond- 
ence was kept up for some time but to no avail. Henry then 
went to England to place the matter before the Ministry there. 
Having arrived he addresed a memorial to Lord Liverpool. ^^'^ 
In this memorial to Liverpool by Henry we get the clearest 
statement of the plot which was then much in evidence between 
the English party in the United States and the British Gov- 
ernment. 

He says : "Soon after the Chesapeake affair, when the Gov- 
ernor General of British America had reason to believe that the 
two countries would be involved in war, and had submitted to 
His Majesty's Ministers the arrangements of the English party 
in the United States for an effective resistencc to the general 
Government, zvhich zvould probably terminate in a separation 
of the Northern States from the gc^ieral Government, he ap- 
plied to the undersigned to undertake a mission to Boston, 
where the whole concerns of the opposition were managed. 
The object of the mission was to promote and encourage the 
Federal party to resist the measures of the general Government, 
to offer assurances of aid and support from His Majesty's 
Government of Canada, and to open communication between 
the leading men engaged in that opposition and the Governor 
General, upon such a footing as circumstances might sug- 
gest ;^'^'^ and, finally, to render the plans then in contemplation 
subservient to the views of His Majesty's Government." 

Failing in England as in Canada, Henry next turns his face 
toward America, arriving early in the year 1812. Feeling a 
just sense of anger toward the English Ministry for its treat- 
ment of his valuable services he decided to reap a just ven- 
geance upon the English. He, therefore, addrssed a letter to 
Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State, (Feb. 20, 1812) and disclosed 
the plot of 1809. He transmitted by the same packet the 
documents and correspondence relating to this important mis- 
sion in which he was employed. Henry denounced most 
bitterly the English Ministry and said he hoped that the wound 
resulting from his exposure would be felt where it was most 
justly merited — upon Craig.^^- 

These papers were turned over to President Madison who 

"'Am. State Papers, vol. 3. P- 546. 

"""Ibid., p. 533. 

"*The italics are my own. 

"^Am. State Papers, vol. 3, p. 545; Niles' 'Register, vol. 2, p. 20. 

73 



sent them to Congress with a message of March 9, 181 2, in 
which he said: "These documents furnish proof to the plot 
for resisting the laws, destroying the Union, and forming a 
political connection between the Eastern States and Great 
Britain. "2 There was a rumor that Madison had paid Henry 
$50,000 for the documents which amount was taken out of the 
Secret Service fund.^^* Nothing can be found in support of 
this statement, however, and we should not give much credit 
to it.^^^ 

Congress, with its usual willingness to discuss all things, 
gave this their attention, and a resolution was pased calling 
for names. But names could not be obtained because Henry 
had no attention of going before a committee of investigation 
for he himself was not wholly free from the plot. The matter 
was then turned over to the Committee of Foreign Relations 
which was to establish the authenticity of the papers, after 
which they were to be printed. ^^"^ They had no difhculty in 
establishing the authenticity of the documents, the signatures 
of Lord Liverpool, Mr. Peel, Sir. James Craig, etc., being 
recognized as genuine. The committee made a formal re- 
port to the House stating the above and lamenting the fact 
that they were unable to do more. "From the careful con- 
cealment, on the part of Henry, of every circumstance which 
could lead to the punishment of any individuals who were 
criminally connected with him, your committee cannot go 
further." 

They examined Count Edward de Crillon, a foreigner, who 
accompanied Henry to this country and reduced his testimony 
to writing. It corroborates and gives much more information 
in support of Henry's statement. ^^" 

However, as an exposure of Eastern Separatists, by one 
conversant with their counsels, this correspondence fell short 
of the effect which might have been anticipated. This is 
largely due to the fact that Henry mentioned no names and 
that the letters were not published until three years after the 
events disclosed in them. The leaders of the party disavowed 

'''Ibid. 

'" Sullivan's Public Letters, p. 262. 
"°Niles' Register, vol. 2, p. 31. 
''^Ibid., pp. 27-31. 

"'Annals of Congress, No. 24, 12th Cong., Part 2, 1811-1812, pp. 
1220-1223; Niles' Register, vol. 2, p. 31. 

74 



all connection with the plot, and permitted friends less 
suspected to answer for them. However this may have been, 
the Craig instructions to Henry were undoubtedly genuine and 
the documents show that Henry's reports had been officially 
transmitted by way of Canada to the British Government.''^ 
Would Craig have taken such a step as this without the 
knowledge or privity of the British Ministry? It would be 
absurd to entertain such an idea for a moment. The chain of 
communication from Pickering to Rose, from Rose to Canning, 
from Canning to Craig, and From Craig back again to the 
"Pickering Party.'"'^ 

In concluding this chapter it is impossible, by any stretch of 
the imagination, to find grounds to justify the conduct of the 
"Essex Junto," or New England, during this trying period. 
We have acknowledged and tried to show that the embargo 
measures were radical, and in a large sense sectional, for the 
obvious reason that commerce was centered in the East. Was 
it true that they believed these acts unconstitutional? Could 
we not say that it was only a sham to get from under the Vir- 
ginia rule, as they called it? They believed that this "rule"' 
was necessarily bent upon destroying the very sources of their 
existence. But was this true? Could it have been that the 
whole South and West were in favor of a destruction of com- 
merce? We believe that it is in no sense true that the South 
was hostile to commerce to the extent which these New Eng- 
land people were taught to believe. The intelligent Southerner 
was in favor of it in every form. The people of the South 
had no objection to commerce as such; they had a system of 
reasoning on the subject which was rather abstract; and their 
opposition to it resulted less from dislike than from a fear that 
all other objects would be sacrificed to it. To destroy it would 
have been to strike at the very, vitals of the nation. The em- 
bargo was not meant to destroy but to preserve commerce. 
What would have been the result if war had been declared 
with the Junto in command in New England, and with their 
arrangements made for restricting the administration, as 
Henry tells us? It can only be a matter of conjecture and it 
is fruitless to attempt a discussion of what might have hap- 
pened. The next chapted will treat the influence of Junto lead- 
ership during the War of 1812. 

'''Ibid. 

"* Schouler, vol. 2, p. 348. 

75 



CHAPTER V 
Intrigues During the War of 1812 

We noted in the last chapter that Congress in March 1809 
raised the embargo as to all other nations except France, Great 
Britain and their dependencies, and substituted a system of 
Non-intercourse as to them, which prohibited all voyages to 
the British or French dominions, and all trade in articles of 
British or French product or manufacturing; at the same time 
authorizing the President, in case either of these nations 
should revoke or modify their edicts and cease to violate our 
neutral commerce, to restore our trade by Proclamation. This 
measure was resorted to because, as we have seen, it was feared 
that the Junto, whose following had become very large, would 
carry forward their designs at no very distant day. It was, 
therefore, a question of how to preserve the Union and the 
Constitution and at the same time maintain our national honor. 
It was believed to be a question of embargo, internal war, and 
separation, or some form of legislation which would still the 
troubled waters at home and merit respect abroad. The pass- 
age of this bills marks, therefore, the cessation of Junto hostili- 
ties, and we pass over a period of three years (1809-1812) in 
which there is comparative quiet in the ranks of the Federalists. 
Only once in that time is there an outbreak of Juntoism. The 
occasion was an application for statehood made by Louisiana 
on January 14, 1811, which will be discussed later. 

This chapter must deal primarily with the attempts of New 
England leaders to block the National x\dministration during 
the War of 1812. It is but the carrying forward of their plans, 
as revealed to us by Henry, in case there should be a war de- 
clared against Great Britain. 

But before we attempt to hinge the actions of the New Eng- 
land Federalist upon Junto influences during this important 
period of history, it will be necessary to make a few general 
observations concerning the attitude and sentiments of the New 
England people. 

1(^ 



Perhaps every reader of history is acquainted with the half- 
hearted support accorded the administration during the War of 
1812 by this particular section of the country. Doubtless many 
are, and always have been accustomed to attribute this miserly 
support to the apparent destruction of commerct, forced upon 
the people by an erring administration. This idea of an erring 
and malicious government is exactly what was held up before 
the people of that section, and with a purpose. There are few, 
we venture to assert, who have ever tried to analyze tlie true 
feelings of this people ; and fewer still, who have ever thought 
of the tremendous force and influence which was brought to 
bear upon New England's inherently honest and loyal sons in 
an attempt to tear down the government and build one upon 
"best liberty," principles and "well born" rule. 

When war was declai"ed against Great Britain instead of 
France, the whole Junto came forward in support of their 
coveted ally. The Junto was so enraged at this declaration of 
war that they began immediately to sow seeds of dissension in 
New England in another vain hope of effecting their design. 
With the unpopular war as an issue, the Junto was able to ' 
work up very early a powerful opposition ; and many other 
active forces were enlisted in supporting the Junto in foment- 
ing an insurrection. For instance we .have to encounter in this 
chapter the preaching of the most enlightened ministers who 
had become convinced that separation was necessary. There 
are a larger number of newspapers than before supporting the 
secession doctrine, and some of the most potent workers are at 
the head of the state governments. 

On the other hand, many prominent men were turning away 
and denouncing the Junto. We already have noticed the 
change in Mr. Plumer. And now Samuel Dexter of Boston, 
formerly a Senator in Congress, and afterwards Secretary of 
War under John Adams, in a speech at a town meeting in 
Fanueil Hall, August 6, 181 2, denounced the measures of the 
Junto^ with great force and earnestness, as leading inevitably 
to a separation of the states. His convictions had indeed be- 
come so strong before the end of the war, that, although he 
had little sympathy with the Republicans, he suffered himself 
to be run against Strong, the Junto candidate for Governor. 
"Why," he said, "they make publications and speeches to prove 

^Plumer's "Life of Plumer," p. 404; Niles' Register, vol. 6, p. 9. 

11 



that we are absolved from allegiance to the National Govern- 
ment and say that a division might be justified. This I cannot 
reconcile with the duties of American citizenship." 

The first renewal of Federalist discontent was manifested, 
as has been said, when a bill for the admission of Louisiana 
as a state, into the Union, was introduced in Congress on Janu- 
ary 14, 181 1. This bill gave occasion for a strong expression 
of feeling by the New England members in Congress. Since 
they were brought now to confront the new and inevitable ex- 
pansion of the American Union beyond the Mississippi, their 
pent-up jealousy broke out again into the greatest anger. 

The new census showed a rapid development of population 
beyond the Alleghanies, where their political camp-fires could 
never kindle. It seemed to them as if New England's sceptre 
and commerce were departing together. At this point, there- 
fore, we are again confronted with the antipathy in the East to 
the growth of the Southwest, to additional representation from 
the South and to slavery expansion; the origin of which, so far 
as concern Pickering and Quincy, and the old faction leaders 
of that section, must be ascribed more to political than humane 
convictions, however clear might have been the later objections. 

Quincy's speech in the House against erecting any state be- 
yond the Mississippi was very violent.^ "If this bill passes," 
he says, "it is my deliberate opinion, that it is virtually a disso- 
lution of the Union ; that it will free the states from their moral 
obligation; and, as it will then be the right of all, so it will 
be the duty of some to prepare definitely for a separation, — 
amicably, if they can, violently, if they must." At that point 
Poindexter* called Mr. Quincy to order and demanded of the 
Speaker if, "Amicably, if they can, violently, if they must," 
was consistent with the propriety of debate.^ The Speaker 
decided that while great latitude was allowed in debate, "Amica- 
bly, if they can, violently, if they must," was contrary to the 
order of debate. His opinion was ruled out by a vote of the 
Hoiise. 

Under the leadership of Hillhouse, Dana and Quincy, pro- 
digious but vain efiforts were made by the Junto Federalists in 

-Movement to abolish Slavery. 

'Annals of Congress, vol. 22, 3d Sess., p. 526; Plumer's "Plumer," 
p. 385; "Life and Speeches of J. Quincy." 
* Delegate in the House from Mississippi Territory. 
' Annals of Congress, vol. 22, 3d Sess., pp. 525-526. 

78 



Congress to prevent the admission of states erected out of the 
Louisiana Purchase and without a constitutional amendment."' 
In regard to the formation of new states, Quincy said: "Sir, 
the question concerns the proportion of power, reserved by this 
Constitution, to every state in the Union. Have the three 
branches of this Government a right at all to weaken and out- 
weigh the influence, respectively secured, to each state, in this 
compact, by introducing at pleasure, new partners, situated 
beyond the old limits of the United States?"" 

Prof. E. S. Corwin said in a recent publication- "The word 
'Sovereign' was first used by Calhoun as elevating the people 
of a state to the highest political entity in the United States." 

In Josiah Quincy 's speech of January 14, in, on the ad- 
mission of Louisiana into the L'nion, was made a most extra- 
ordinary plea for the political sovereignty of the states.*^ On 
page 530, he said: "The term new states in this article^° in- 
tends that New Political Sovereignties be formed within the 
original limits of the United States ; and does not intend new 
political sovereignties, with territorial annexations, to be erect- 
ed, without the original limits of the United States." Again 
on page 535, he said: "The proportion of the political weight 
of each sovereign state, constituting this Union, depends upon 
the number of states having a voice under the compact. This 
number the Constitution permits us to multiply at pleasure 
within the limits of the present United States but not outside. 
Now^ sir, what is this power that we propose to usurp? Noth- 
ing less than the power, changing all the proportion of the 
w^eight and influence, possessed by the potent sovereignties 
composing this Union. A stranger to be introduced to an equal 
share, without their consent. The Constitution never meant 
that we could add foreign partners to this compact at our 
irresponsible pleasure." 

Mr. Tracy, in the Senate in 1803, gave his reasons why he 
could not vote for the Louisiana Treaty, and referred to the 
states as being so many original sovereignties or partners to the 
compact. ^^ 

"Jefferson's first idea, Randolph's "Jefferson," vol. 3, p. 

^Annals of Congress, vol. 22, 3d Sess., p. 530. 

^ Mich. Law of Rev., May 1912, p. 534. 

'Annals of Cong., vol. 22, 3d Sess., pp. 524-542. 

" Article 4, Sec. 3, of the Constitution. 

"Annals of Cong., vol. 13, 8th Cong., ist Sess., p. 55- 

79 



As regards State Interposition, Pickering said July 8, 1809: 
"How are the powers of the respective states to be maintained 
but by individual states putting their negative on the usurpa- 
tions of the general government?"^- The newspapers of New 
England, during the years 1808-1809, and 1811-1814, are full 
of such sentiments.^^ The Journal of the Hartford Convention 
in 1814 declares: "That the states not only have the right but 
it becomes their duty to interpose their authority when infrac- 
tions of the Constitution endanger their state sovereignty."^'* 

But returning to the discussion in Congress, we find that the 
Junto objected to Louisiana's being admitted on account of the 
French influence which might be manifested in that quarter. 
To this old and well-worn objection, Poindexter of Mississippi 
made some lively thrusts. He said :^° "1 admit the existence of 
French influence there, but I cannot make it a basis on which 
to justify a refusal to emancipate the great body of people from 
the trammels of territorial vassalage. Is it a good reason, why 
the people who reside within the circle of the Essex Junto 
should not enjoy equal rights with the rest of their fellow 
citizens, because those who compose that association are avow- 
edly the partisans of England? And I venture to pronounce, 
sir, that these British attachments, fostered and cherished 
amidst the wrongs and insults which we have received from 
that nation, have already produced more mischief to this na- 
tion, than the miserable French influence existing in New 
Orleans would produce in a half century." 

In the Senate the aged Pickering, offended those who favor- 
ed territorial expansion by exposing, in open debate, confidential 
correspondence relating to West Florida,^" and was therefore 
censured by that body^^ although this might have been spared 
him but for his obstinacy. Pickering was trying to prove that 
the United States had no claim whatever to Florida between 
the Mississippi and the Perdido rivers.^® In support of this 

^"^ Pickering Mss., January 8, 1809. 

" See Boston Gazette, the Statesman, the Essex Register, the Pitts- 
field Sun, and the Boston Centinel. 

"Miles' Register, vol. 7, P- 3o8. 

^ Annals of Congress, vol. 22, 3d Sess., p. SSS. 

"The papers were letters from Talleyrand to Livingstone, in which 
the former denied that the United States had acquired, by treaty of 
1807, any title to Louisiana east of the Mississippi. 

" Annals of Congress, vol. 22, 3d Sess., pp. 65-66. 

" Ibid., p. 65. 

80 



argument, he read the documents pubhcly which were intended 
only for the ears of the members of the Senate. In his last 
attempt, therefore, he exerted his powers to limit Southern 
territory and Southern representation. 

As we have seen, the Louisiana debate in 1811 was simply 
a revival of the debate of 1803, when the purchase was made. 
The grounds for opposition at both times were, in Junto terms, 
as follows : "If you extend the Southern territory you destroy 
that balance of power so necessary to our Union. Therefore, 
we as a New England Junto, do hereby agree to protest against 
such extension, on every occasion, in token of deepest respect 
and gratitude to the Fathers who said: "Lest your numbers, 
be equally balanced, one with another, at all times, ye cannot 
hope to endure."' What the Fathers intended has been a never- 
dying source of debate for scheming politicians throughout all 
ages. Their efforts availed nothing in this connection, how- 
ever, and Louisiana became a state April 8, 1812. 

The efforts of the Junto to block the Administration during 
the War of 1812, being the main topic of this chapter, we re- 
gret that it is impossible to take up in more detail the causes 
which led up to the outbreak. They cover almost the entire 
period from 1793 to the declaration of war in 1812, and, of 
course, cannot be discussed here. Many of our grievances, 
however, have been mentioned in connection with the embargo 
and other measures of retaliation. 

The American nation had despaired of ever being free with- 
out war from British impressment and the constant inroads 
upon our commerce. The British refused to raised the long 
standing Orders in Council, saying that the Non-intercourse 
ought to be raised and English commerce put on the same basis 
as that of France. On the ist of June, therefore, Mr. Madi- 
son transmitted to Congress a correspondence^'' between Mr. 
Russell, the American Charge d'affaires at London, and the 
British Ministry on the subject of the Orders in Council, by 
which it appeared that the latter inflexibly adhered to their 
system, and that all hopes of accommodation were at an end. 
At the same time the President sent the correspondence be- 
tween Mr. Foster and the Secretary of State on tiie same 
subject. Mr. Foster based all of his excuses on the fact that 
the French decrees had not been repealed, and in this England 

"Am. State Papers, vol. 3, P- 385- 

81 



unfolded her true policy. She declared'-'' that the Orders in 
Council should not be repealed until France had revoked all of 
her internal restrictions on British commerce. It was either 
tamely surrender our affairs or fight. "Forbearance had indeed 
ceased to be a virtue."-^ 

President Madison's message, which accompanied the docu- 
ments, referred to above, was referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations. The committee acted promptly and, with 
an elaborate report of British aggressions upon our neutral 
commerce, recommended that Great Britain's measures be met 
by force." On June 5. the House of Representatives passed 
a bill declaring war against Great Britain and her dependencies. 
It was debated and passed by the Senate and signed by the 
President June 18, 1812.-^ 

Many opponents of the Administration contended that Madi- 
son became a tool in the hands of the war party in Congress. 
led by Clay. It is urged that this war party conditioned Madi- 
son's second nomination upon his British policy, and that to get 
this favor he was forced to recommend a thirty days' embargo 
followed by a declaration of war. 

There can be no doubt that Clay proposed the embargo which 
became a ninety days' law instead of a thirty, on April 4, 
1812-^ ; but whether it was intended as a direct preliminary to 
war or whether it was a last effort at peaceful negotiation, mat- 
ters little to us. It is sufficient that war was declared and that 
the causes justified the measure. Madison says that the em- 
bargo was a means rather of negotiation than a preliminary to 
war.-^ 

Immediately after the passage of the bill, the minority party 
in Congress published an address to their constituents, assign- 

=" Madison Works, vol. 9, p. 272. 

'"■See Am. State Papers, vol. 3, PP- 40S-629, for the diplomatic cor- 
respondence ; Niles' Register, vol. 2, has many of the important reports, 
including the report of the committee on foreign affairs which enum- 
erates British aggressions ; Perkins' "Late War," gives the British and 
French decrees in their order, pp. 1-48; and the Annals of Congress, 
vols. 23 and 24, give the entire discussion and the war documents. 

^Am. State Papers, vol. 3, P- 40S- 

■■"Annals of Congress, vol. 23, p. 265; Niles' Register, vol. 2, pp. 
272-273. 

"Annals of Congress, vol. 23, 3d Sess.. p. 187; Monroe's corre- 
spondence, March 15, 1812. 

^Madison's writings, vol. 8, April 24, 1812. 

82 



ing their reasons for not supporting the measure.-" In their 
opinion, a war with England would necessarily lead to a con- 
nection and alliance with France, hazardous to the liberties of 
the United States. If war, at all, were necessary, it ought to 
be with France as being first and greater in her aggressions. 
They would suffer American merchant men to arm in their 
own defense, and pursue such courses of trade as their judg- 
ment should direct. They considered the attempt to conquer 
Canada as unjust and impolitic and promising no good results. 
The minority protest from Congress served as a platform for 
a national "Peace Party."-" This party comprised nearly the 
whole of the Federalists throughout the Union. Upon such a 
platform the "friends of peace, liberty, and commerce," as they 
styled themselves, began to organize for the Presdential 
campaign. 

Meanwhile, the New England coterie set their faces like flint 
against active preparations. They obstructed the national re- 
cruitment and subscriptions to the national loan. One after 
another of the New England State legislatures protested 
against the war with Great Britain, and called upon the people 
to vote down the men responsible for it. Quincy presented a 
protest from Massachusetts ; Chittenden followed with one 
from Vermont,-^ and Connecticut furnished a proclamation 
from her Governor Griswold.-'' The Administration could very 
well evade resolutions so long as they were allowed to remain 
mere resolutions ; but this could not be for long, because New 
England's Governors were nearly all members of the Junto* and 
were not afraid to act.^° The Administration, therefore, was 
yet to receive its hardest blows. 

Four days after the declaration of war, Governor Strong 
received a requisition from General Dearborn^^ to order into 
the services of the United States forty-one companies of militia 

^® Annals of Congress, vol. 24, part 2, June 1812. Composed largely 
of New England Congressmen. 

" Schouler, vol. 2, p. 355 ; M. Carey's Olive Branch, p. 225. 

^ Annals of Congress, vol. 23, 3d Sess., p. 1480. 

^Niles' Register, vol. 2, p. 389. 

^The recent elections had given as Governors: Strong, to Massa- 
chusetts; Griswold, to Connecticut; Jones, to Rhode Island; Galushia. 
to Vermont; and Plumer, a converted Junto member, to New Hamp- 
shire. Galushia was defeated by Chittenden at the beginning of 1813. 

'^Senior Major-Gen. in Army of U. S. 

83 



for the defense of the ports and harbors of Massachusetts and 
the harbor of Newport, Rhode Island. The Governor, with 
the advice of the council, refused to comply with this requisi- 
tion and communicated his views upon the subject to the execu- 
tives of Connecticut and Rhode Island.''- In support of his 
opinions the Governor remarked that the President had author- 
ity to call the militia into actual service, but that there being 
no immediate danger of invasion either in Massachusetts or 
Rhode Island, the President was over-stepping his power, that 
the State Governor should judge for himself when the militia 
should go out, and that they could not be lawfully commanded 
by any officer, outside of the militia, except it be the President 
of the United States. Connecticut and Rhode Island refused 
their quota of militia on exactly the same ground. 

The Constitution of Massachusetts authorized the executive 
to require the opinion of the judges of the supreme court upon 
any important legal or constitutional question. On this occa- 
sion, therefore. Governor Strong submitted the following ques- 
tions for judicial decision.''^' Whether the exigencies contempla- 
ted by the Constitution for placing the militia at the service of 
the United States were not questions to be decided by the sev- 
eral states ? 2. Whether, when any of the exigencies occur au- 
thorizing the employment of the militia in the service of the 
United States, they can lawfully be commanded by any officer 
outside of the militia except the President of the United States? 
In answer to these questions, Judges Parsons, Sewal, and Par- 
ker, state^* : "After reciting the clause in the Constitution relat- 
ing to the subject, we find that no power is given either to the 
President or to Congress to determine that either of the exigen- 
cies does in fact exist; as this power is not delegated to the 
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, 
it is reserved to the states respectively, and must be exercised 
by those whom the states have intrusted the chief command 
of the militia." To the second question, they say : "We know 
of no constitutional provision authorizing any officer of the 
Army of the United States to command the militia, or any 
officer of the militia to command the Army of the United States. 

^=' Niks' Register, vol. 2, p. 388; Perkins' "Late War," p. 63. 
^^Ibid., vol. 3, p. 117. Strong's speech to Legislature. 
"* Decision in full in "Political Tracts," 1805-1812, Harvard Library; 
Plumer's "Life of Plumer," p. 399; Perkins' "Late War," p. 64. 

84 



Congress may provide laws for the government of the miHtia 
when in the actual service, but to extend this power to the 
placing them under command of an officer not of the militia, 
except the President, would render nugatory the provisions of 
the Constitution, that the militia are to have officers appointed 
by the states." 

The constitutional questions on the subject of the militia, 
now brought into view and at issue between the general gov- 
ernment and the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 
Rhode Island, were of vital importance. Without an efficient 
army, the safety of the nation rested at this period on the 
militia. If they were to be considered as eighteen distinct and 
independent bodies of troops, acting without concert, and sub- 
ject to being called into service only when the executives of the 
several states deemed it necssary, and not subject to the direc- 
tion of any one head, it was evident that they could be of little 
use in defending the country. Who knew this better than the 
Junto? What bodies of men ever received a judicial decision 
more in keeping with its desires than the above ? It is impossi- 
ble to imagine a decision more nearly in keeping with Juntoism 
than this, because their purpose was to block the Administration 
in prosecuting the war. 

"The power,'' says Monroe, "which is given Congress by the 
people of the United States to provide for the calling forth the 
militia for the purpose specified in the Constitution, is uncondi- 
tional. It is a complete power vested in the National Govern- 
ment, extending to all those purposes. If it were dependent 
upon the assent of the executives of the individual states, it 
might be entirely frustrated at any time, and we could not 
depend upon the militia for public defense." The decision ad- 
vanced by the three judges of Massachusetts on the other hand, 
that the regular troops and the militia were to be considered as 
independent allied bodies, when not directly under the com- 
mand of the President himself, pushed the doctrine of "States 
Rights" further than it had ever been carried before. 

The burden of the Junto's petitions to Congress was: "An 
alliance with England must be our salvation ; war must be our 
eternal ruin." Madison may have been duped into war, but the 
provocation was strong, and war or dishonorable submission 
was the only alternative which England had left us. There is 
no evidence that Napoleon was in touch with Madison or that 

8S 



he influenced the administration in any way. Peace and neutral 
commerce every one desired, but they could not be had to- 
gether. Nor could there be a war for maritime and neutral 
rights without involving, also, offensive warfare. 

The national election of 1812 is of peculiar interest to our 
narrative, because there was another very decided attempt at 
a national nominating convention by the Junto, or peace Fed- 
eralists. They were again face to face with the proposition 
of defeating Repubhcan candidates. In pursuance of the regu- 
lar custom, the Republican members of Congress assembled 
in caucus in the senate chamber and nominated James Madison 
for the office of President and John Langdon of New Hamp- 
shire, for the office of Vice-President, May 8, 1812."^ but Mr. 
Langdon, who was seventy-one years of age, refused the nom- 
ination.^® Therefore, at a later caucus, Elbridge Gerry of 
Massachusetts, was regularly nominated for the office of 
Vice-President.^^ 

Mr. Madison's war policy had made him unpopular with a 
small portion of the Republican party in New York. This 
dissenting faction determined to defeat Madison, and to this 
end nominated through caucus DeWitt Clinton. The Federal- 
ists hoped that Madison had become sufficiently unpopular by 
the war measures to lose the nomination ; but, as he had not, 
they were again at a loss to know what to do. DeWitt Clinton 
was then a person of some distinction in the State of New 
York. He had expressed his detestation of mobocracy, and 
had been reprimanded for it. Although he had been ranked 
with the Jeffersonian school, yet, as he had indicated dissatis- 
faction with the policy of Mr. Madison, it was hoped, not only 
by the nominating faction but by the Federalists, that he might 
be elected. As a matter of fact, any man that could have been 
elected would have been preferred to Madison by the Federal- 
ists, and this party was willing to combine with any portion 
of the citizens who were willing to withdraw from the support 
of that gentleman. Measures were taken, therefore, to effect 
a union of these two dissatisfied forces by calling a conference 
in New York in the month of September, 1812. 

The Democratic convention which met in Baltimore in 1831 

"Niles' Register, vol. 2, p. 192. 
^ Ibid., p. 276. 
=' Ibid. 



has always stood as the first National Nominating Convention. 
Few writers, therefore, have ever mentionel the secret attempt 
at a National Convention of 1808, and the one of 1812. The 
latter is simply a duplicate of the 1808 convention which we 
have already discussed, and will not be treated in detail. Those 
who have mentioned the Convention of 181 2 at all have called 
it the first Secret Nominating Convention and not the second. 
Viewed with relation to practical results, both were of slight 
consequence, and perhaps for this reason they have been neg- 
lected ; but as steps in the development of the present method 
of nominating candidates for the presidency, these Federalist 
conferences of 1808 and 1812 are of much importance. They 
are important to this work because both are undoubtedly prod- 
ucts of Juntoism. So far as is known, no report of the pro- 
ceedings of the 1812 Convention was ever published, and the 
newspapers of the period contain very little trustworthy infor- 
mation regarding it. The conference was conducted as private- 
ly as possible, so what little information the papers contain is 
more or less conjectural. We must again, therefore, depend 
upon a few letters as our sources. 

Mr. Sullivan, one of the delegates, gives the following brief 
account of its origin"^: "Soon after the war had been declared 
I chanced to be at Saratoga Springs, where I met with the Hon. 
Calvin Goddard, of Norwich, Connecticut, and with the Hon. 
John Dwight of Springfied, Massachusetts, Governor Griswold, 
of Connecticut, was also at the hoted, but confined to his 
chamber. It was the habit of these two gentlemen and myself, 
to pay the Governor a daily visit; and when he announced 
himself too ill to receive us, we strolled into the neighboring 
woods to talk over the state of the Union, respecting the wel- 
fare and durability of which we entertained serious and painful 
fears." 

"On one of these execursions, it was concluded, that a Con- 
vention should be convened at New York during the following 
September, at which as many states should be represented as 
could be induced to send delegates. The object of the con- 
vention was to determine upon the expediency of defeating 
Mr. Madison's re-election, by running DeWitt Clinton as the 
opposing candidate for the Presidency. Goddard was intrusted 

^J. T. Sullivan's "Public Men of the Revolution," p. 350; Am. Hist. 
Rev., vol. I, p. 680. 



with the State of Connecticut ; Dwight with New York, and I 
was to awaken Massachusetts to the importance of this Conven- 
tion ; while all three were to assist in arousing the States." 

They met privately, and behind closed doors, Sept. 15, 1812, 
and consumed three days in eager debate.^^ The Convention, 
during two days, had been unable to come to any determination. 
Rufus King,^*^ who had been persuaded^^ to attend, eagerly op- 
posed the adoption of Clinton as their candidate, denouncing 
him as a mere ambitious demagogue, a second Aaron Burr.*^ 
King said further : "As evidence of the course he would be 
likely to follow, we should remember that he disapproved the 
embargo, then receded from his position, and in a speech made 
in the Senate of New York, which he published, restored him- 
self to the confidence of the Democrats by a triade of abuse 
poured out upon the Federalists. If we succeed in promoting 
his election we might place in the chair a Caesar Borgia in- 
stead of a James Madison."*^ These invectives against Clinton 
threw the Convention into still greater confusion and it was 
about to be adjourned when H. G. Otis, by a rather clever 
speech,^* succeeded in restoring order and it was agreed to 
support DeWitt Clinton for President. Jared IngersoU, of 
Pennsylvania, was selected for Vice-President. Henry Adams 
says: "No one knew what pledges had been given by Clinton 
in the bargain for the electoral votes, but no man of common' 
sense who wished to preserve the Government and the Union 
could longer refuse to vote for Madison.'*' 

At the Convention in question eleven states were represented 
by seventy delegates. Vermont sent two delegates, New Hamp- 
shire two, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island three, New York 
eighteen, Connecticut six, New Jersey twelve, Pennsylvania 
twelve, Delaware two, Maryland three, and South Carolina 

'^Ibid., Hildreth, "U. S. Hist.," vol. 6. p. 3/6. 

*" King always stood with Hamilton against going to the point of 
secession, and this meeting he considered dangerous. 

" King's "Rufus King," vol. 5, p. 276. Letter from Radcliff to King. 

*^Ibid., King to Gore, p. ^77; Hildreth, vol. 6. p. ^76. 

^* See King's Papers, in Life and Letters, vol. 5, p. 281 ; see pp. 
275-284, same reference, for King's account of the resolutions and 
position taken by the Convention. 

** Sullivan's "Public Men," p. 351. 

^ H. Adams' "Hist, of U. S.," vol. 6, p. 410. Mr. Adams characterizes 
the canvass in New York as being most discreditable. 

88 



four. We see that nearly every state in which the Federalists 
were strong enough to make their vote a counting factor in 
the election sent delegates, and all were asked to send them. 
So far as the party was concerned, therefore, we may be safe 
in saying that they had a national representation. We do not 
know how the delegates were chosen, because the records are 
too incomplete to admit of the assertion that they were duly 
elected. They doubtless used the same method as that employ- 
ed in 1808. 

The analogy between this Conference and the present na- 
tional nominating convention is practically complete. Delegates 
of a distinct political party met for the purpose of nominating 
a candidate for the Presidency. They nominated such a candi- 
date; their party conducted a "Campaign" in his behalf and 
cast their votes for him. The facts in the case, then, would 
seem to warrant the assertion that the Conventions of 1808 
and 1812 were near approaches to, if not the strictest sense, 
National Conventions. The result is well known. Mr, Madi- 
son was elected and the Junto lost its last chance of capturing 
the Presidency. , 

It has been shown how upon the first note of war. New Eng- 
land majorities reverted to the old leaders, under whose in- 
spiration the legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 
Rhode Island asserted States Rights, and discountenanced all 
war measures against Great Britain not purely defensive, while 
the Governors refused to march the quota of militia to the de- 
fense of ports or place them under the orders of the War De- 
partment. We shall now go on to discuss other maeasures of 
Junto opposition. 

The plan of military operations at the commencement of the 
war, on the part of the United States, was to garrison and 
defend the seaboard principally by occasional calls on the 
neighboring militia, aided by a few regulars, the whole to be 
under the command of generals from the regular army. With 
the remaining regular forces, together with such volunteers as 
could be procured, they were to attack the British posts in 
Upper Canada, and subdue them. The War Department be- 
lieved that could be accomplished before England would have 
time to place an effective army there and it would give the 
United States a great advantage.*® Here, however, they struck 

*° Writings of James Madison, vol. 8, p. 262. 



the full force of Junto opposition because it was offensive war- 
fare and leveled against their beloved England. They would, 
in some measure, assist in the defense but used their choicest 
language against all offensive movements. 

In a document *^ entitled : "The Creed of Federal Editors," 
one can find such sentiments as these : "We cannot, and we 
will not rejoice in any event of victory which tends solely 
to prosper the unjust and wicked views of our Cabinet in pro- 
ducing an offensive war, at once disgraceful, unnatural, and 
every way disastrous." 

"It is disgraceful because there is no longer a doubt, since 
the development of the juggling arts of Bassano and Russell, 
that it was produced either by wicked intrigues, the baleful in- 
fluence, or the menaces of the French Tyrant. It is unnatural, 
because it was declared for the sole purpose of invading the 
Canadian provinces. It is unnatural, because it has rent asun- 
der, perhaps forever, nations of the name language, laws and 
religion ; nations which should be united in a holy league to 
defend law, liberty, and religion against the most dangerous 
tyrant who was ever permitted to scourge the earth." 

Routed at the polls in 1812 as a national party, the peace 
men who had fallen in with the Junto and had supported De- 
Witt Clinton against Madison, began to disband ; for the elect- 
oral vote and the Congressional returns showed that the war 
had been sustained and that it must go on. But the inflexible 
rulers of the Eastern States were not to be thus turned back. 
National reverses seem to have bound this type of men more 
closely to one another. Except for Gore and the over-aggres- 
sive Pickering who were serving in Congress, all the other 
great statesmen of the Junto school, Quincy, Lloyd, Otis, 
Strong, Chittenden, Hillhouse, J. C. Smith, and others, were 
shedding their combined light upon local politics. Some of these 
leaders, like Pickering, continued to blaspheme the Adminis- 
tration : others like Otis were more tolerant ; but all agreed 
that the New England States, even though left alone, must look 
to Federalism as their last hope in the approaching shipwreck. 
Practically all of the other peace states had reallied to the 
Union cause. New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and 
Maryland now gave the Administration a firm support. 

In New England, on the other hand, the peace party gained 

*' The Examiner, p. 127. 

90 



in strength as the war progressed. In the spring elections of 
1813, Strong was elected Governor of Massachusetts with a 
Federal legislature, J. C. Smith became Connecticut's chief ex- 
ecutive succeeding the late Griswold.^" Chittenden of Vermont, 
who, in default of a popular choice, was made Governor by a 
joint ballot of the legislature, defeated Galushia ; and Giliam, 
of the same Junto School, supplanted Plumer a Governor of 
New Hampshire, thus delivering into the hands of the Junto 
leaders the supreme control of the state governments. Gov- 
ernor Plumer's defeat was a hard blow to the Administration, 
because he was a firm supporter and the first New England 
Governor to promptly send militia at the call of the President 
in 1812.*^ He gives the following account of his defeat: "No 
part," he says March 9, 181 3, "of my official conduct has been 
condemned but that of ordering out the detached militia in 
1812 when requested by the President. The great accusation 
is, that I support the war and vindicate the National 
Government."^" 

It is a curious fact, overlooked at the time by both parties to 
the controversy, that the Legislature of New Hampshire, in 
June, 1794, by a resolution still in force, had authorized the 
Governor to call out the militia whenever required by the 
President. ^^ 

Chittenden, as soon as he took the oath of office, assumed 
command of the State Militia, and recalled a small Vermont 
brigade, detailed by his predecessor for garrison duty at Bur- 
lington, while critical operations were in progress at that point. 
This action by Chittenden was rebuked by distant states as 
treasonable, and a war member of the House of Representa- 
tives at Washington proposed to have him prosecuted." But 
Otis having laid on the table of the Massachusetts Senate a 
resolution expressive of the duty and readiness of Massachu- 
setts to aid. with her whole power, the Governor of Vermont, 
the matter was dropped. °^ 

*^ Griswold had died in office. 

*' Niles' Register, vol. 2, p. 273 ; speech to Legislature on the declara- 
tion of war. 

"' Plumer's "Plumer," pp. 40S-414. 

"^Ibid.. p. 389. 

"'Niles' Register, vol. 5, P- 423; Hildreth, vol. 3, p. 465: Schouler, 
vol. 2, p. 421. 

'' Hildreth, vol. 3, p. 465. 

91 



Throughout the year 1813, the success of the American arms 
lay principally in the daring and splendid work of her small 
navy which operated in and about the New England harbors. 
The old British faction, the Essex Junto or the New England 
peace party, ever watchful of British interests, seems to have 
grown quite despondent over the defeats of the British navy. 
They attempted to aid Great Britain, therefore, in destroying 
American war vessels and won another, and even more odious, 
title — "Blue light Federalists." 

One incident occurred in New London harbor at the time 
Hardy's blockading squadron hemmed in the United States 
frigates. Stephen Decatur commanding the United States 
squadron addressed the following letter^* to the Secretary of 
the Navy, December 20, 1812: "Some few nights since, the 
weather promised an opportunity for this squadron to get to 
sea, and it was said that on that night we intended to make the 
attempt. In the course of the evening two blue lights were 
burnt on both the points at the harbor's mouth as signals to 
the enemy, and there is not a doubt, but that they have, by 
signals and otherwise, instantaneous information of our move- 
ments. Great but unsuccessful exertions have been made to 
detect those who communicate with the enemy by signal. Not- 
withstanding, these signals have been repeated, and have been 
seen by twenty persons, at least, in this squadron. There are 
men in New London who have the hardihood to affect to dis- 
believe it, and the affrontery to avow their belief." 

As illustrative of the feeling which the "blue hghts" pro- 
voked we will quote from several newspapers. The Rhode Is- 
land American has this to say:^^ "The infamous 'blue light' 
incident has been lustily denied by many ; for it is feared the 
honest part of the community may reflect on the circumstance, 
and in it discover that wicked 'British influence' that prevails 
in certain parts of the United States."'" The Baltimore Federal 
Gazette says : "It is astonishing to observe the efforts made to 
invalidate the truth of the report respecting the 'blue light' ex- 
hibition on the shores of New London. With impudence un- 
paralleled the facts are denied in toto, and the thing is twisted 

" Niles' Register, vol. 5, p. 302. 
"'^ Copied in Niles' 'Register, vol. 5, p. 302. 

°* See also Annals of Cong., No. 25, vol i, House debate on the "Blue 
Lights" affair. 



and turned a thousand ways to weaken its force ; for the people 
are alarmed and shocked at the vileness, and begin to see the 
lengths, to which the attachment of some to the enemy, will 
lead them.'"^' No positive evidence has ever been found con- 
necting this affair with the British faction. Congress conclud- 
ed the matter too trivial for investigation ; but public suspicion, 
long directed against the "peace men" of New England, did 
them ample mischief in the epithet of "Blue light Federalists." 
Conclusions may be drawn, however, from what has gone be- 
fore and from that which is to come. 

We said at the beginning of this chapter that New England's 
political bosses were responsible for the half hearted support 
given the Administration during the war. W'e said. Loo, that 
Juntoism had been breathed into the nostrils of waiters (editors 
and others, and that even the most learned ministers caught the 
spirit and showered invectives upon the administration at 
Washington and plead with their people to, "Come out from 
among them." During the last year of the W^ar they based 
their complaints upon three subjects, i. That England has 
always been willing to make a treaty with us on fair and hon- 
orable grounds. 2. That the war was offensive and morally 
wrong. 3. That since our Administration was so obstinately 
bent on continuing the war no prospect of peace could exist 
as long as the Government had means of carrying it on. As to 
the first subject, we cannot say that it was reserved for the 
last year of the war, in fact none of them were entirely reserved 
for the second year, but greater eft'ort was manifested at this 
period to make them felt. The first subject was the text, as 
we have seen, of Pickering's denunciation of the Administra- 
tion in 1808. In that letter he went so far as to accuse the 
President of withholding documents which would have estab- 
lished the innocency of England to the satisfaction of all.^* It 
was used by Ouincy and others in Congress to show that war 
was unnecessary and that if England's advances had been met 
promptly and fairly, peace could have been assured.'''' The 
Junto claimed that our Ministers were instructed in such a way 
that no nation could treat with them. This, of course, refers 
to our demand for a treaty on the impressment issue. 

"Copied in Niles' Register, vol. 5, p. 31 1- 

""'Political Tracts," 1908. 

''Edmund Quincy's "Life and Speeches of Josiah Quinn." 

93 



The second subject, which is concerned with the moraHty of 
the cause, must, in all justice, be entrusted to the New England 
clerg}'. Governor Plumer, having been defeated in the spring 
election of 1813, as Governor of New Hampshire, was removed 
from the scenes of public life. He had been deeply moved by 
the false and wicked accusations which the sermons of Osgood, 
Parish, and Gardiner contained. Therefore, he published a 
series of essays"" during the winter of 1813-14 entitled: "An 
address to the Clergy of New England on their opposition to 
the riders of the United States, by a Layman." He quoted the 
text of Malachi : "Ye have departed out of the way, ye have 
caused many to stumble ; therefore have I made you con- 
temptible and base before all the people.'' Plumer's addresses 
were, in large part, quotations from the sermons and their 
analysis. Beside the newspaper circulation, about three thou- 
sand copies of it were circulated in pamphlet form. It proved 
to be a great and wholesome publication in favor of the Admin- 
istration in its attempt to counteract the baleful influence. 

A few quotations "^^ will suffice to show how the Clergy took 
up to old Junto songs at this juncture, and chanted them from 
the pulpits. Dr. Osgood in a sermon of June, 1812, says : "Our 
government has the hardihood and afifrontery at which Demons 
might blush. This war is an outrage against Heaven, against 
all truth, honesty, justice, goodness, — against all principles of 
social happiness." In another sermon of a few days later, he 
says: "Were not the authors of this war in character nearly 
akin to the Deists and Atheists of France ; were they not men 
of hardened hearts, sacred consciences, reprobate minds and 
desperate wickedness ; it seems utterly inconceivable that they 
should have made a declaration of war." Shortly after this 
exposition we find him warning his people as follows : "Every 
man who volunteers his services in such a war against Great 
Britain or loans his money for its support, or by his conversa- 
tion, his writings or any other mode of influence, encourages 
its prosecution, that man is an accomplice in the wickedness ; 
leads his conscience with the blackest crimes, brings the guilt 

^The pamphlet containing these addresses can be found in Harvard 
library. 

•^AU of these quotations are taken from Plumer's addresses. He 
quotes them directly from the sermons. See Carney's "Olive Branch" 
for parts of many of these sermons. 

94 



of blood upon his soul, and in sight of God and His law is a 
murderer — and no murderer hath eternal life." How variant 
are such wanton charges from the spirit of that mild religion, 
which enjoins on its disciples, to let their moderation to be 
known to all men, and not to judge others. 

Dr. Parish in a sermon of April 8, 1813, compares the 
President to the Devil, and says Congress has established 
iniquity and murder by law. He represents our rulers as the 
abject slaves of the French Emperor, and all our calamities as 
rising from the friendship of our government to that haughty 
master. July 12, 1812, he tells us: "The wicked archives of 
all the wicked governments from Macedonia's madman to the 
Swede, furnish no parallel to this profligate measure. The 
story of Herod destroying all the babes of Bethlehem, will 
give place to this more enormous iniquity." In a later sermon, 
he endeavors to excite the people of the Eastern States to 
rebel, to dissolve the Federal government and dismember the 
Union. "The general government," he says, "cannot provide 
any reasonable defense. They cannot raise men ; they cannot 
borrow money." He tells them further that they have thrown 
avv-ay a sufficient number of petitions and remonstrances by 
sending them to the Potomac to form carpets for her palaces. 
Then followed these questions: "Will you then throw your- 
selves completely in their power, by suffering this w^arfare to 
proceed? Will you admit Southern troops into your borders?" 
This is a fair sample of the Massachusetts pulpit during the 
war. It is simply Juntoism as it had been proclaimed from 
the year 1800. J. O. Adams wrote to Mr. Plumer January 10, 
1813, saying: "The clergy of this country are growing more 
and more like the clergy of all other countries. Osgood. 
Parish and Gardiner, are but minatures of Lowth, Sacheverel, 
Laud and Lorain ; and in that rank I leave them." ''- 

When w^e consider the third subject, "The Government can- 
not carry on w^ar without money and as long as they have it 
this blood shedding will never cease," it becomes necessary to 
uncover one of the darkest and most treasonable of the Junto 
plats. From the beginning of the war, as we have seen, the 
Peace Faction, as they called themselves, had exerted every 
influence and effort to thwart the government in its eft'ort to 
provide means for maintaining the war against Great Britain. 

^ Phimer's "Life of Plumer," p. 103. 

95 



We have seen how at the beginning they attempted to block 
the raising of an army; how they refused to send out the State 
Militia; and how they chose to interpret the Constitution to 
meet their own wishes and desires. It now remains for us to 
see how they acted in regard to financing the war. Boston was 
to be the grand focus of this conspiracy. 

It must be remembered that the embargo had closed all 
American ports to the legal admission of foreign goods. It 
must be remembered that the officers were not very zealous 
in the maintenance of the restrictive laws. Smuggling, there- 
fore, became almost respectable and. owing to New England's 
capital, was extensively carried on. This illegal trade was 
kept up, and during the war many valuable British prizes ^^ 
were taken into Boston ports. "^^ Boston, therefore, became a 
distributing center for foreign goods to other cities. For these 
goods they paid partly in bills of the banks of the Middle and 
Southern states and partly in their own promissory notes. ^° 
Boston by this means became a financial autocrat, having in its 
hands despotic power to control the money aft'airs of the coun- 
try. This fact suggested to the leaders of the Peace Faction 
in New England a scheme for blocking the Administration 
financially and thereby compelling it to abandon with dis- 
honor "*' the struggle with Great Britain. Nor were they slow to 
act upon the suggestion and to put the scheme into operation. 

From the beginning of the war the government was com- 
pelled to ask for loans, and the Peace Faction made such per- 
sistent opposition for the purpose of embarassing the govern- 
ment, that in every case a bonus "^ was paid for all sums 
borrowed.^® In March, 1814, a loan of $25,000,000 was auth- 
orized. Only $11,400,000 of the proposed loans were raised 
and that by paying a bonus of $2,852,000."^ It was so dis- 

*^ Carey's "Olive Branch," p. 286. 

^ Harrison Gray Otis, charged the Administration with the author- 
ship of this depredation of morals and execrable course of smuggling 
and fraud. 

'^Lossing's "War 1812," p. 1008. 

"Ibid., Carey's "Olive Branch," p. 286; Schouler, vol. 2, p. 415; 
Pickering Mss. February 4, 1814, letter to Putnam; Lodge's "Cabot," 
p. 530. 

*' Niles' Register, vol. 2, pp. 91 and 195. 

•^Lossing's "War," p. 1008. 

*^ Ibid., p. 1009. 

96 



astrous that only one more attempt was made after that time to 
borrow money. This was the darkest period of the war, and 
then it was that tlie Peace Faction at poHtical meetings, through 
the press, and from the pulpit, put every obstacle in the way 
to crush the government. By inflamatory and threatening 
publications and personal menaces, they intimidated many 
capitalists."'' 

Of a species of denunciation held out to deter men from sub- 
scribing, some idea may be formed from the following ref- 
erences taken from various Boston papers and other publica- 
tions at this time. Mr. John Lowell '^ in "Road to Ruin" No. 
5, says: "Will Federalists subscribe to the loan? Will they 
lend money to our national rulers? It is impossible; first, be- 
cause of principle; secondly, because of principle and interest. 
If they lend money now they make themselves parties to the 
violation of the Constitution, the cruelly oppressive measures 
in relation to commerce, and to all the crimes which have oc- 
curred in the field and in the cabinet." ("Road to Ruin" 
Xo. 5). He continues: "To what purpose have the Federalists 
exerted themselves to show the wickedness of this war, and 
to show the authors of it not only to be unworthy of public 
confidence but highly criminal, and to arouse public sentiment 
against it, if now they contribute money without which these 
rulers must be compelled to stop?" (The same reference con- 
tinued) : "By the magnanimous course pointed out by Governor 
Strong, that is, by withholding all voluntary aid in prosecuting 
the war, the manfully expressing our opinions as to its injustice 
and ruinous tendency, we have arrested its progress ; and driven 
its authors to abandon their nefarious schemes, and to look 
anxiously for peace. What then if we lend them money? 
They will not make peace ; they will hanker after Canada. Pray 
do not prevent them, the abusers of their trust, from becoming 
bankrupt ; do not prevent them from becoming odious to the 
public and replaced by better men. Any Federalist who lends 

'"One of the best examples of New England literature on the subject 
is the Examiner. It contains fifteen articles entitled, "Road to Ruin," 
by John Lowell. There are many political essays and official documents 
which could be cited, but we will quote largely from "Road to Ruin" 
and indicate by numbers, as the articles are numbered from i to 15. 
Cary, in his "Olive Branch" quotes correctly from the Examiner and 
also from newspapers on this phrase of our subject. 

" Both Lowell's were loyal Junto supporters. 

97 



money to the government, must go shake hands with James 
Madison and claim fellowship with Felix Grundy. Let him 
no more call himself a Federalist and a friend of his country. 
He will be called by others infamous." "But Federalists will 
not lend money because they will never get it again. How, 
where and when will the government get money to pay interest I 
There are two very strong reasons, therefore, why Federalists 
will not lend money — first, because it would be a base aban- 
donment of political and moral principles ; secondly, because it 
is pretty certain that they will never be paid back the amount." 
The Boston Centinel, March 24, 1813, says: "The war advo- 
cates appear very sore and chagrined at the failure of the late 
loan, and in their ravings ascribe the meager subscriptions to 
the truths which have appeared in the Federal papers on the 
subject." In a discourse delivered at Byfield, April 7, 1814, by 
Elijah Parish, D.D. we find the following: "No peace will 
ever be made, till the people say that there shall be no war. If 
the rich men continue to furnish money war will continue until 
the mountains are melted with blood — till every field in 
America is white with the bones of her people. "- 

The Junto seems to have extracted promises from many of 
the wealthier citizens not to lend money to the government ; 
and the fact that they loaned their money secretly, would sug- 
gest that they were liable to some sort of disgrace or per- 
secution. To quote John Lowell again in "Road to Ruin," 
No. 5 : "Money is such a drug that men against their con- 
sciences, their honor, their duty, their professions and promises 
— are willing to lend it secretly to support the very measures 
intended and calculated to ruin them." What, alas, must be 
the awful state of society and the tremendous pressure brought 
to bear, when a free citizen is afraid to lend his money publicly 
to support the government trying to protect him ! And to be 
forced to suffer such abuse as the above from Mr. Lowell, when 
he rallies secretly to its support, certainly signifies the depths 
to which patriotism can be dragged. 

Records exist to prove these not false accusations. The fol- 
lowing is taken from the Boston Chronicle, April 14, 1814, and 
signed by Gilbert and Dean, Brokers. Exchange Coffee 
House, Boston, April 12" : "From the advice of several friends, 
we are induced to announce to the public that subscriptions to 

'^ Carey's "Olive Branch," p. 292. 



the new loan will be received by us as agents. . . . Applica- 
tions will be received from any persons who wish to receive 
their interest in Boston, . . . and the names of all subscribers 
shall be known only to the undersigned." 

These extracts give but a faint idea of the violence of the 
publishers, at this time, by the peace faction. We cannot 
wonder at the people becoming intimidated and hiding their 
money in stockings beneath hearthstones, and in various other 
places to prevent its getting into the clutches of Madison and 
his cohorts. 

Nor was this all. To make the blow still more efifectual the 
conspirators made arrangements ''* with agents of the govern- 
ment authorities of Lower Canada whereby a very large 
amount of British Government bills, drawn on Quebec, were 
transmitted to New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, and 
offered on such advantageous terms to capitalists as induced 
them to purchase.'* By this means an immense amount of 
gold was transmitted to Canada, placed beyond the reach of 
the Government of the United States, and put into the hands 
of the enemy, to give succor to the British who were waging 
war against the independence of the Republic. 

These machinations failed to produce the desired effect. 
There were loyal men in New England, as we have seen, who 
still subscribed to the loans. The Middle and Southern State 
banks, with such outside help, were able to keep the govern- 
ment going. So these "Wise men from the East" adopted 
more strenuous measures to drain those banks of their specie, 
and render them unable to meet their subscriptions to the loan. 
The Boston banks fell into this scheme ; otherwise it could not 
have been effected. '= The notes of the banks in New York, 
and of the banks further south, held by these Boston banks. 

"Lossing's "War," p. loro; Carey's "Olive Branch," p. 301; Schouler, 
vol. 2, p. 415. 

''Boston Daily Advcriiscr, Dec. 16, 1814. These transaction were 
made so boldly that the hills were advertised in the Boston papers. I 
annex the following : 

"i bill for L. 800 British Government Bills, 

I ditto 250 For sale by 

I ditto 203 Chas. W. Green, 

No. 14 India wharf." 

1.253 
''Lossing's "War of 1812," p. 1009; Schouler, vol. 2, pp. 415-416. 

99 



were transmitted to them with demands for specie. At the 
same time drafts were drawn on the New York banks for the 
balance due the Boston corporations to the amount of about 
$8,000,000 in the course of a few months. This of course 
caused the New York banks to draw heavily on those of Phila- 
delphia and of the South and caused a panic. Statistics show '^^ 
that the Boston banks which had taken the action had $250 in 
specie for every $100 of their notes in circulation — "a state of 
things," says Carey, "probably unparalleled in the history of 
banking from the days of the Lombards to the present day.'' " 
The extensive smuggling, the forced sale of British Govern- 
ment bills,'^^ and the later demands of the New England banks 
upon the weaker ones caused all of the banks of New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Mary- 
land, Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, to refuse payments in 
specie.'*' Some of the banks farther south were aided by some 
prizes and were not forced into such straits.*'^ As direct 
evidence to this fact we have a report ^^^ addressed and signed 
by the presidents of the six Banks of Philadelphia which says : 
"IVe are forced to suspend specie payment on account of the 
payment in specie for smuggled goods and the trade in British 
government hills zvhich have caused very great sums to be ex- 
ported from the United States." As further testimony we 
have a letter from Mr. Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury say- 
ing: "Not only did New England lend no aid to the Treasury, 
but her whole influence was thrown to embarrass it. Of loans 
to the amount of $41,000,000 paid into the treasury during the 
war, she contributed less than three millions. This was not 
all. A large importation of foreign goods into the Eastern 
States, and an extensive trade in British Government bills of 
exchange, caused a drain of specie through New England to 
Great Britain. The specie in the vaults of Massachusetts 
banks rose from $1,700,000 in June 181 1, to $3,900,000 in June 
1812, and to $7,300,000 in June 1814, all of which was lost to 

''Henry Adams' "Life of Albert Gallatin," pp. 473-474; Carey's 
"Olive Branch," p. 299; Lossing's "War," p. lOio. 
" Carey's "Olive Branch," p. 300. 

™Niles' Register, vol. 7, sup. p. 175; Schouler, vol. 2, p. 415. 
" Niles' Register, vol. 7, sup. p. 175. 
" Ibid., p. 176. 
^^ Ibid., Full report published and signed by the six bank Presidents. 

100 



the Government and the Treasury."**- Disaffection, there- 
fore, withheld a greater part of the capital and so forced the 
government to negotiate a foreign loan to support a very just 
war. ^^ 

The facts concerning the attitude of the "Essex Junto," the 
"British faction," the "Peace Party" or the "Blue-light Fed- 
eralists," during the War of 1812 seem sufficient to warrant the 
assumption made at the beginning of this chapter, that this 
particular coterie of individuals rather than malicious legisla- 
tion by the administration were responsible for the half-hearted 
support of New England. We have now only to discuss the 
crowning conspiracy of the Junto — the Hartford Convention. 

"^H. Adams' "Life of Albert Gallatin," pp. 437-474. 
*^ Writings of James Madison, vol. 8, p. 278. 



CHAPTER VI 
The Hartford Convention 

Before attempting to discuss the Hartford Convention, it is 
necessary to sketch briefly some of the legislation which helped 
to precipitate it. In our last chapter we left the Administra- 
tion, perhaps, in the darkest hour of conflict. It was being 
forced into the most extreme measures to maintain the war. It 
refused to make peace on humiliating terms, and it seemed next 
to impossible to prolong the war without more troops. The 
proposition, by Monroe, to raise a large force by conscription, 
therefore, brought matters to a crisis in New England. In 
some of the other states, the matter of local defense had been 
left almost wholly to the discretion of the respective governors ; 
but the President, becoming suspicious of the loyalty of New 
England because of the injurious action of the Peace Faction, 
insisted upon the exclusive control of all military movements 
there. The Massachusetts militia not having been placed un- 
der General Dearborn's orders, the Secretary of State, in an 
official letter to Governor Strong, refused to pay the expenses 
of the State militia defending Massachusetts.^ Similar action 
for a like cause had occurred in the case of Connecticut, and a 
clamor was instantly raised that New England was abandoned 
to the enemy for the action of the National Government. The 
forces, it is true, had been withdrawn to protect, if possible, 
the Capital at Washington, but any one has to follow only the 
conflicts of war to understand why the New England States 
were thus temporarily unprotected. 

The refusal of the Government to pay the militia defending 
the coast of Massachusetts ; the proposition to raise a large 
force by subscription and the temporary withdrawal of troop?, 
from this section, furnished the Peace Faction new ground 
upon which they could proceed. A joint committee of the 
Massachusetts legislature was appointed, having H. G. Otis 
for its chairman, to make a report on the state of public af- 

' Niles' Register, vol. ", p. 148. Monroe's letter to Strong. 

IQ2 



fairs. This report - contained a convert threat of independent 
action on the part of that State, recommending "that a number 
of troops, not exceeding ten thousand, be raised and officered 
by the Governor for the defense of the state ; that the Gov- 
ernor be authorized to borrow from time to time a sum not 
exceeding one milHon dollars to defray local expenses ; that 
. . . persons be appointed as delegates from this legislature 
to confer with delegates from the States of New l-i^ngland 
upon subjects of public grievance, and to take measures for 
procuring a convention of delegates if they think proper; that 
a circular letter from this legislature be addressed to the execu- 
tive government of each of said states explaining the objects 
of the proposed conference and inviting them to concur in 
sending delegates thereto ; that on the day of instant, 

the legislature will, by joint ballot, elect persons to meet 
such delegates as may be appointed by the said states, or either 
of them, at in the state of 

The Administration minority protested^ against this action, 
and denounced it as a disguised movement to prepare the way 
for a dissolution of the Union. The protest was of no avail. 
The report of the Committee was adopted by a vote of three to 
one,-* and the Governor addressing a circular letter to the other 
Governors of the New England States, invited them to appoint 
delegates, to meet in convention at Hartford, Conecticut, Dec- 
ember 15, 1814, to deliberate upon the dangers of which the 
states in the Eastern section of the Union were exposed.'^ The 
proposition also contained suggestions relative to Constitutional 
amendments on the subject of slave representation, which 
might secure to New England equal advantage with the South. 

The convention of both houses of the Massachusetts legis- 
lature, October 10, proceeded to the choice of twelve delegates, 
to meet and confer (on the 15th of December next) with such 
delegates as may be chosen by any or all of the other New 
England States." 

Late in the same month the legislatures of Connecticut and 
Rhode Island accepted the invitation from the Governor of 

-■ Niles' Register, vol. 7, P- i50. Report of Committee. 

Ubid., p. 153- 

'Ibid., p. 152. 

''Ibid., p. 179. The circular letter. 

Ubid., p. 153. Act of Mass. legislature. 

103 



Massachusetts, and appointed delegates to the Hartford 
Convention, Connecticut appointing seven and Rhode Island 
four/ The legislature of Vermont refused to adopt the Mass- 
achusets resolutions and unanimously reported against them.* 
New Hampshire was not represented as a state because a 
majority of the council who must authorize a call of the legis- 
lature, to appoint delegates, were Republicans.^ This Council 
consisted of three Republicans and two Federalists, so the Re- 
publican majority blocked the appointment of delegates to 
Hartford. But there followed immediately County Conven- 
tions in these two States and Vermont was finally represented 
by one delegate from the County of Windham, and New- 
Hampshire by two representatives from the counties of Grafton 
and Cheshire.^" There were, therefore, only three states fully 
represented at Hartford. 

The Convention met according to programme, on Thursday 
morning, December 15, 1814. composed of twenty-six del- 
egates.'^ They organized by the appointment of George Cabot, 
of Boston, President and Theodore Dwight of Hartford, Sec- 
retary. The sessions of the Convention continued thorughout 
three weeks, behind closed doors. The movement had created 
much alarm at the Seat of government, especially because at 
about that time the Massachusetts legislature appropriated a 
million dollars toward the support of ten thousand men to re- 
lieve the militia in service, and to be exclusively under state 
control. 

The Hartford Convention has been condemned and defended 
alike for almost a century without any one writmg a satis- 
factory account of it. Dwight, Secretary of the Convention, 
has written a history of it, but it is quite pointless. The treat- 

'' Xiles' iRegister, vol. 7, p. 165 and 180. 

'^ Ibid., p. 167. 

* Ibid., see also Plumer's "Plumer," p. 417. 

'" Ibid., p. 305. 

" The following are the names of the delegates : Geo. Cabot, Xathan 
Dane, Wm. Prescott, H. G. Otis, Timothy Bigelow, Joshua Thomas, 
Samuel Summer Wilde, Joseph Lyman, Steven Longfellow, Jr., Daniel 
Waldo, Hodijah Baylies, and George Bliss, from Massachusetts ; Chaun- 
cey Goodrich, John Treadwell, James Hillhouse, Zephaniah Swift, 
Nathaniel Smith, Calvin Goddard, and Roger M. Sherman, from Con- 
necticut; Daniel Lyman, Samuel Ward, Edward Monton, and Benjamin 
Hazard from Rhode Island; Benjamin West, and Mills Olcott from 
New Hampshire ; and Wm. Hall, Jr., from Vermont. 

104 



ment of the Convention in Henry Adams "New England 
Federalism" is equally unsatisfactory. These are the most 
voluminous accounts available ; but, as length seems to be their 
only redeeming feature, we propose to discard both of them 
and attempt to build our structure upon fragmentary evidence 
wherever it can be found available. The reason for nothing of 
value having been written on the Hartford Convention is the 
fact that it was conducted in secret and that no one has ever 
been able to collect any considerable amount of information 
concerning it. Never, certainly, were doors shut more closely 
upon a delegate, and (professedly a popular) convention, than 
upon this one ; not even the doorkeepers or messengers gaining 
access to its discussions.^- Inviolable secrecy was enjoined 
upon every member and there is no evidence that the injunction 
was ever removed. 

Four years afterwards, when the Hartford Convention and 
its projectors bent under the full blast of popular displeasure, 
Cabot delivered, to his native state, the sealed journal of its 
proceedings which had remained in his exclusive custody.^^ 
When this report was opened it was found to be a meager 
sketch of formal proceedings.^* It makes no record of yeas 
and nays ; states none of the amendments ofifered to the various 
reports ; attaches the name of no one to a single proposition ; 
in short, it carefully suppressed any and all the evidence which 
could ever be brought against an individual delegate. 

For a convention lasting three weeks to leave only a journal 
of a few pages does not seem reasonable. That twenty-six men 
should have consented to leave no ampler means of vindicating 
their own names to posterity seems equally incredible. That 
sphinx-like mystery, therefore, which has always hung about 
the Hartford Convention leaves us in grave doubt as to what 
really took place behind the doors. The writer of today is 
little better equipped than the writer of a half century ago. 

"^ Dwight's "Hartford Convention," p. 385, Resolution 3, which says : 
"The most inviolable secrecy shall be observed by each member of this 
convention, including the Secretary, as to all propositions, debates, and 
proceedings thereof, until this injunction shall be suspended or altered." 
See also, Winsor's "Nar. and Crit. Hist." vol. 7. P- 32i ; Randall's "Jef- 
ferson," vol. 3, pp. 411-420. 

^'Winsor's "Nar. and Crit. Hist.," vol. 7, P- 32i ; Schouler, vol. 3. 

P- 473- 
"Niles' Register, vol. 7, p. 405. Journal of the Convention. 

105 



Let us begin our discussion with the assumption that what 
the most earnest projectors wished for, and really intended, 
that the Convention should accomplish, was left but half done ; 
that the most ardent members of the Junto believed that they 
had promoted a convention which would assemble and im- 
mediately declare the Union severed and that the Northern 
Confederacy, toward which they had struggled, would suddenly 
spring into existence. 

What we propose to do, then, is to show that some of the 
members of the Junto intended and actually besought many of 
the members to declare in favor of separation. On the other 
hand, the delegates, as they assembled, seem to have had in 
mind a different method of attack, which was not a bold declar- 
ation of secession, but the withholding of all support and the 
proposing of such amendments to the Constitution as would 
make the National Government powerless. They would force 
amendments to the Constitution by withholding all support 
from the Administration and in such case the Federalists 
would again get into power. We must depend upon the Jour- 
nal of the convention for proof of this last proposition. 

The idea of a New England Convention was not, by any 
means, a novel one wnth the Junto. The plan was in their minds 
from 1804 until it actually took place. The first mention of 
such a convention was, as we have seen, in 1808-9.^^ Otis' ideas 
were exactly the same as those drafted by the Massachusetts 
committee, of which he was chairman. The second proposal, 
if we may believe J. O. Adams and Pickering, was in 1812, 
immediately after the declaration of war against Great Brit- 
ain^*' The plan, at this time, was defeated principally by a 
speech against it in Faneuil Hall, by Samuel Dexter, who for- 
mally denounced it as a forerunner to the dissolution of the 
Union. ^^ It remained, therefore, for the third attempt to be 
successful and that can be said to have been only partially so. 

The stout-hearted Pickering still in Congress, spent much of 
his time and energy writing letters to urge the Convention on 
to bolder deeds. "Union," he says, October 21, 1814, "is the 
talisman of the dominant party ; and many Federalists, en- 

"Quincy's "Life of Quincy," p. 164, Otis to Quincy ; Adams' "New 
England Federalism," p. 404, Pickering to J. Lowell; Ibid., Adams to 
Otis, p. 240. 

^* Adams' "Xew England Federalism," pp. 404-240-262. 

" Plumer's "Plumer," p. 404. 

106 



chanted by the magic sound, are alarmed at every appearance* 
of opposition to the measures of the faction, lest it should en- 
danger the Union. I have never entertained such fears. On the 
contrary, in adverting to the ruinous system of our govern- 
ment for many years past, I have said, let the ship run aground. 
The shock will throw the present pilots overboard, and then 
competent navigators will get her afloat and conduct her safely 
into port."^^ 

Gouverneur Morris seems to have been in some doubt as to 
what the Convention would do, for we find him writing Picker- 
ing, November i, 1814, as follows: "Doubts are, I find, enter- 
tained whether Massachusetts is in earnest, and whether she 
will be supported by the New England family. But surely 
these outrageous measures must arovise their patriot sentiment 
to cast off this horrible load of oppression."^" 

As we have seen all through our narrative, half heartedness 
on the part of some of New England's leaders, and a lack of the 
entire confidence of the people, had served to hold in check all 
but the most radical when it came to a striking point. There 
was never any want of discussion, but, when it came to point of 
action, Pickering and the most radical of his Junto were disap- 
pointed. "I hope in God," he wrote John Lowell, November 
7, "that the delegates of Massachusetts (a decided majority, at 
least) may now prove their readiness to act as well as to speak. 
I consider the destiny of New England, and. in the result, the 
United States to be placed in the hands of the proposed con- 
vention. While any symptoms of faint-heartedness will ruin 
all, the wise sentiments and efficient measures the Convention 
will be able to express and devise, and the dignified firmness 
with which they shall be enforced, forbidding every suspicion 
that they will not be verified in act, will insure the wished for 
success. The forlorn and destitute condition of the states south 
of the Potomac, will render your victory easy and complete."'" 
These two men were perhaps the most active and violent in 
trying to prepare the minds of the delegates for action. Lowell 
was one of the most active, influential and radical, writers in 
New England. His pen was going all the time and scathing 
indeed were its productions.-^ Lowell was certainly in touch 

'"Lodge's "Cabot," p. 535, Pickering to G. Morris. 
""New England Federalism," by Adams, p. 403- 
"" Ibid., p. 404- 
="His "Road to Ruin" is a fair example of this subject. 

107 



with the views of the delegates of the Convention. In a letter 
to Pickering, December 3, 1814, he said: "I am convinced that 
the Convention will do little ; that they will be ridiculed by one 
party, and loudly censured by the other. I am convinced that 
it will not go far enough ; but they ought not to have accepted 
the position unless they felt, each for himself, that he was 
ready for great and decided measures. When you ask any of 
them what the Convention will do you will find that they expect 
to talk. I say no man should have accepted such an office, if 
he expected it to end in argument and remonstrance."-- In the 
last part of this letter Mr. Lowell gives us some idea of the 
state of mind in which he found many of the delegates. Cabot, 
the President, first gets his attention in this wise : "Cabot is 
undoubtedly a wise man but he has no confidence in the possi- 
bility of awakening the people. He will not, therefore, be in 
favor of any measures which will disturb our sleep. So at 
least I fear ; for I cannot find out from him what his opinions 
are. 

"Otis is naturally timid, and frequently wavering — today 
bold, tomorrow like a hare trembling at every breeze. He is 
sincere in wishing thorough measures ; but a thousand fears 
restrain him." 

"Bigelow is bold. He sneers at all threats of vengeance from 
the other states, and if well supported I have no doubt that 
measures of dignity and relief would be adopted." 

"Prescott is a firm man, but extremely prudent, and so mod- 
est that he will yield his opinion to others." 

"Mr. Dane you know. He is a man of great firmness ap- 
proaching obstinacy, and, of course, it must be uncertain what 
course he will take." 

"Mr. Wilde is a very able man but I fear his counsels may 
be influenced by circumstances." 

"These are the men who will have the greatest influence in 
our delegation. It is to be regretted that we have not chosen 
two or three such persons as Daniel Sargent, Wm. Sullivan and 
Colonel Thorndike."-^ 

Ex-Governor Plumer being asked, while the Convention was 
in session, what in his opinion would be the outcome, gave the 

^ Adams' "Federalism," p. 410. 

^ These were men of known radical tendencies and thoroughly con- 
verted to Juntoism. 

108 



following: "You ask what will be the result of the Hartford 
Convention. I expect no good, but much evil from it. It will 
embarrass us, aid the enemy, and protect the war. The prime 
object is to effect a revolution, — a dismemberment of the Union. 
Some of the members for more than ten years, have considered 
such a measure necessary. Of this I have conclusive evidence. 
I think, however, they have too much cunning, mixed with fear, 
to proceed further, at their first meeting, than to address re- 
monstrances and resolves to the general government. But the 
spirit they have excited in the minds of the more violent party 
will not, I fear, be satisfied with mere words, but will, should 
the war continue, lead to more violent measures."-* This is an 
excellent summary, in advance, of the proceedings of the Con- 
vention. It is by a man who had every opportunity of knowing 
what he was talking about, having so recently been Governor 
of New Hampshire. It bears us out in our assumption that the 
more radical said "separate" while the timid ones said "hesi- 
tate," but we will not leave it with this. 

Gouverneur Morris has left us many interesting letters upon 
tihs subject, all of which compare quite favorably with the most 
violent ones of the time. He says on December 22, that his 
eyes are fixed on the Star in the East-'^ which he believes to be 
the day-spring of freedom and glory. "The men assembled 
will, I believe, if not too tame and timid, be hailed hereafter as 
the patriots and sages of their day and generation."-*' This gen- 
tleman was evidently confident that the Convention would not 
fail to do that which was expected of them. Just before it 
adjourned we hear him saying: "Yankees like to make what 
they call fair bargains, and will, I guess, easily take up the 
notion of bargaining with the National Government, wdiicb, 
according to my notion, can make no bargain of practical result 
which will not amount to a severance of the Union."-' 

Nor can it be said that these were the only observers that 
expected and looked for radical measures from the Convention. 
The newspapers were just as active and their articles just as 
vituperative at this time and in this connection as ever before. 
The Boston Gaaette has the following: "To the cry of dis- 

" Plumer's "Plumer," p. 420. Letter to Jeremiah Mason. 

" Hartford Convention. 

"Sparks "G. Morris," vol. 3, P- 322. 

^ Ibid., p. 326. 

109 



union, the plain and obvious answer is that the States are 
already separated ; the bond of union was broken by President 
Madison. The Convention cannot do a more popular act, not 
only in New England, but throughout the Atlantic States, than 
to make a peace for the Government as a whole." The Balti- 
uiore Federal Republican said, November 17, 1814: "On or be- 
fore the Fourth of July, if James Madison is not out of office, 
a new form of government will be in operation in the Eastern 
section of the Union. Instantly after, the contest will be in 
many states, whether to join the new government or adhere 
to the old. . . . Mr. Madison cannot complete his term if the 
war continues." 

These letters-^ are the only trustworthy sources to show that 
separation was expected of the convention by the promoters. 
How many more of the same strain President Cabot may have 
torn up, one can only conjecture. -° If we keep in mind that the 
Hartford Convention was as much a product of the conspiracy 
of 1803-5, ^s it was of the War of 1812, it will be much easier 
to satisfy our minds as to the real intent of this convention. 
By looking carefully at the attitude of the Essex Junto, toward 
all National Republican legislation, throughout this period it 
is not difficult to see that the Hartford Convention was the 
culmination of Juntoism, — the crowning act of the conspiracy. 

We now come to the consideration of the journal left us 
by Mr. Cabot, which contains the greater part of the informa- 
tion that we have of what occurred behind the closed doors at 
Hartford. And by an analysis of this journal we must support 
our second thesis, namely that the less radical believed that the 
administration could be starved and frightened into terms with- 
out openly declaring for separation. It was, they believed, at 
any rate, worth trying. 

The views of the most radical first claimed the attention of 
the convention, and a discussion of the two positions ensued.^" 

'^ Many other letters of the same nature and by many different per- 
sons can be found in Adams' "New England Federalism," pp. 398-421 ; 
Sparks "Life of G. Morris," vol. 3, pp. 310-321; and Lodge's "Life of 
Cabot," pp. 529-550. 

^ Lodge says in his "Life of Cabot" that he (Cabot) destroyed his 
correspondence in his last days . 

^ A complete copy of the journal is printed in Niles' Register, vol. 
7. P- 305. There are also several copies of it in a single bound volume 
in Harvard library, entitled, "Hartford Convention of 1814." We will 
refer to the copy in Niles' Register. 

no 



"There are those," it says, "who regard the evils which sur- 
round them incurable defects of the Constitution. They yield 
to a persuasion, that no change, at any time, or on any occasion, 
can aggravate the misery of their country. This opinion may 
ultimately prove to be correct. But as the evidence on which 
it rests is not yet conclusive, and as measures adopted upon the 
assumption of its certainty might be irrevocable, some general 
considerations are submitted, in the hope of reconciling all to 
a course of moderation and firmness which may save them from 
the regret incident to sudden decisions, probably avert the evil, 
or at least, insure consolation and success in the last resort. "'^^ 
This is an excellent statement of the two opinions regarding 
the situation as the Convention assembled ; the more conser- 
vative offering an apology to the more radical for not quite 
agreeing with them, and at the same time, setting forth what 
they regard to be the wisest policy and duty of the Convention, 
which is virtually our second thesis. 

Following the statement of the two positions, the Conven- 
tion goes into a discussion of the disgraceful administration. 
"The fierce passions which have convulsed the Nations of 
Europe," they said, "have passed the ocean, and finding their 
way to the bosoms of our citizens, have afforded the adminis- 
tration the means of preverting public opinion, in respect to 
our foreign relations, so as to acquire its aid in the indulgence 
of their adherents.'- They must be made to feel that the 
Eastern States cannot be made exclusive victims of a capricious 
and impassioned policy." ^^ But, finally, they agree: "If the 
Union be destined to dissolution, by reason of the multiplied 
abuses of a bad administration, it should, if possible, be the 
work of peaceful times. Events may prove that the causes of 
our calamities are deep and permanent. They may be found 
to proceed, not merely from the blindness of prejudice, pride 
of opinion, violence of party spirit, but they may be traced 
to combinations of individuals, or of States, to monopolize 
power and office, and to trample upon the rights and interests 
of the commercial section of the Union. Then separation will 
be preferable to an alliance." '"'^ 

^^Niles' Register, vol. 7, p. 306. 

"^The long nursed cry of French aid and British oppression. 

^ Xiles' ^Register, vol. 7, 306. 

''Ibid. 



The journal next leads us into a detailed presentation and 
discussion of their grievances in connection with the war. 
We cannot take up the discussion upon these various subjects 
but must content ourselves with the conclusion, which will af- 
ford a key to the discussion. 

They declared the war measures ^" unconstitutional and 
absolutely void, which was followed by a bold statement of 
"State Interposition." We have already noticed the force of 
this declaration in connection with Louisiana's application for 
statehood, but we will quote it again as it belongs in this 
connection, and is the strongest declaration of "State Sov- 
ereignty" yet made. "In case," it says, "of deliberate, danger- 
ous and palpable infractions of the Constitution, affecting the 
sovereignty of a state, and liberties of a people ; it is not only 
the right but the duty of such state, to interpose its authority 
for their protection, in a manner best calculated to secure that 
end. When emergencies occur, which are either beyond the 
reach of the judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of 
the delay incident to their forms, states, which have no com- 
mon empire must be their own judges, and execute their own 
decisions. It will thus be proper for the several states to 
await the ultimate disposal of the obnoxious measures recom- 
mended by the administration and use their power according 
to the character these measures shall finally assume, to protect 
their sovereignty." ^^ The whole journal is nothing but a 
states rights document, but these few lines must serve as an 
example of the ideas of the convention upon that doctrine. 

The next step in their discussion is perhaps the most im- 
portant of all to our narrative, for it furnishes indisputable 
evidence to almost all of the positions we have taken in re- 
gard to what New England called ruinous legislation, and to 
the foundations upon which the Junto has labored. The con- 
vention furnishes us this valuable evidence by comparing the 
administration of Washington to that of Jefferson and of 
Madison.^^ The former administration had been nothing but 
prosperity at home and respect abroad, while the succeeding 
administrations by a change of policy simply tore down the 
wise framework of the Washington Administration. 

■^Direct taxation; conscription; National control of state militia; re- 
fusal to pay State militia; offensive warfare, etc. 
^ Niles' Register, vol. 7, p. 308. 
^ Ibid., p. 310. 

112 



The reasons for the absolute failure of the latter two ad- 
ministrations, as enumerated in the journal of the Hartford 
Convention, are as follows: "i. A deliberate and extensive 
system for effecting a combination among certain states so as 
to secure to popular leaders in one section of the Union the 
control of public affairs in perpetual succession. 

2. The exclusion from office men of unexceptional merit, 
for want of adherence to the executive creed. 

3. The infraction of the judiciary authority and rights, by 
depriving judges of their offices in violation of the Con- 
stitution. 

4. The influence of patronage in the distribution of offices, 
which in these states has been among men the least entitled 
to such distinction. 

5. The admission of new states into the Union, formed at 
pleasure, in the Western region, has destroyed that balance of 
power which originally existed between the states, and deeply 
effected their interests. 

6- The easy admission of naturalized foreigners to places 
of trust in the government. 

7. Hostility to Great Britain and partiality to the late gov- 
ernment of France. 

8. A superficial theory in regard to commerce, accompanied 
by a real hatred to its interests, and a ruinous perseverance 
in efforts to render it an instrument of coercion and war."^'^ 

Now perhaps we can safely say that the Hartford Conven- 
tion was simply the crowning act of the Essex Junto whose 
intrigues began with the Adams Administration. The Con- 
vention was not a mere product of the war of 1812, because 
we recognize in these grievances the very earliest, as well as 
the latest, grounds for Junto conspiracies. Pick them to pieces 
and what do we find ? The Virginia rule, removal of dissenting^ 
spirits, fate of the midnight judges. New England Federalists 
not getting their share of appointments, territorial expansion 
and a destruction of the balance of power, Alien Law not rigid 
enough, hostility to Great Britain, and a deliberate destruction 
of commerce. In all of these we have heard the complaining 
and threatening voices of the "Essex Junto," and it seems 
almost superfluous to add that the Hartford Convention was 
truly an offspring of Juntoism. 

**Niles' Register, vol. 7, p. 310- 

113 



Out of the above quoted grievances they proceed to develop 
the seven famous amendments, which were carefully prepared 
but destined never to be removed from the journal. We will 
not quote these amendments because they simply cover the 
points we have just considered and can be easily found in the 
above reference to the journal of the Convention. Some of 
them, however, are very interesting because they are so sweep- 
ing. The sixth says, for example: "No person who shall 
hereafter be naturalized shall hold any office under the auth- 
ority of the United States." They despair, of course, of ever 
importing another such mind as Hamilton's or Gallatin's. The 
seventh declares: "No person shall be elected to the presidency 
of the United States a second time ; nor shall the President be 
elected from the same state two terms in succession." 

With this much accomplished, there seemed nothing more 
to be added, except a few well chosen recommendations to 
their respective states. They are in part :, "We, your delegates 
assembled, do hereby recommend that you adopt all such meas- 
ures as may be thought necessary to protect the citizens of said 
states from the operation and effects of all acts which have 
been or may be passed by the Congress of the United States ; 
that a certain proportion of the taxes be collected and placed 
in the State Treasuries to be used for the support of the 
militia which shall be under the command of the Governor ; 
that said troops be armed, equipped, disciplined, and held in 
readiness for service and upon orders from the Governor shall 
form a conjunction with the militia of any of the other states 
to repeal any invasion." ^^ 

But it was further resolved: "That if these resolutions to the 
National Government ■*" should be unsuccessful, and peace 
should not be concluded and the defense of these be further 
neglected, it will, in the opinion of this Convention, be ex- 
pedient for the legislatures of the several states to appoint 
delegates to another convention, to meet at Boston in the State 
of Massachusetts, on the third Thursday of June next, with 
such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so 
momentous may require." 

Resolved further, "That the Hon. George Cabot, the Hon. 

''Niles' Register, vol. 7, p. 312. 

^''The entire report was to be presented to the authorities at 
Washington. 

114 



Chauncey Goodrich and the Hon. Daniel Lyman, or any two of 
them, be authorized to call another convention at any time be- 
fore new delegates shall be chosen, if in their judgment the 
situation of the country demands it." *^ 

With these expressions of their feelings and desires the 
Hartford Convention merely adjourned to meet again if the 
National Government failed favorably to meet their advances. 
It was not dissolved as a mass meeting with a full report, but 
an adjournment to a later day for the purpose of ascertaining 
what action the Government would take concerning their re- 
port. Do they not leave this impression? If our present 
report is not effective in relieving the situation, we will meet 
"on the third Thursday of June next" and follow the wishes 
of the more radical by voting secession. \\'hat would have 
been done, however, can only be a matter of conjecture. We 
regret that the evidence available does not give some idea of 
the debate which took place in the Convention. There must 
have been dissenting voices ; there must have been resolutions 
and amendments ; some must have been more radical than 
others ; there must have been heated speeches ; but upon these 
points we must remain ignorant. ]\Ir. Cabot stated over his 
signature, November i6, 1819, that this was the original and 
only journal of the proceedings of the Hartford Convention, 
and we should dislike to be accused of even attempting to 
impeach the testimony of the President of the Hartford Con- 
vention. *^ 

The apparent timidity of the Convention provoked some 
very ironic statements from the Junto members who remained 
at home. This for example : Gouverneur Morris wrote ^loss 
Kent, January 10 "The meekness of their doings reminds me 
of one of La Fontain's fables. A council of rats being con- 
voked, to devise measures of defense against feline de- 
predations, a sleek young member was much applauded for 
proposing to tie a bell around puss's neck, which giving sea- 
sonable notice of her approach, would enable every one to take 
care of himself. Before the question w^as put, an old rat 
(addressing the chair) said, T too. Sir, entirely approve of our 
young friend's proposal, but wish, before I vote, to know who 
will tie on the bell." '' 

"Xiles' Register, vol. 7, P- 3^3- 
"^Dwight's "Hartford Convention," p. 399. 
^ Sparks "G. Morris," vol. 3, P- 326. 

115 



The legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut** ac- 
cepted the report of their delegates in January, 1815, and 
appointed a commission to proceed to Washington to make 
proposed demands upon the National Government. The mem- 
bers of this body from Massachusetts were H. G. Otis, Wm. 
Sullivan and Thomas Perkins ; those from Connecticut, Calvin 
Goddard and Nathaniel Terry.*' 

While the Hartford Convention was in session deliberating 
how to create more discontent and strife, there was also a 
meeting at Ghent whose members were exerting every effort 
to effect a peace. What a different atmosphere must have en- 
veloped the two Conventions ! On December 24, 1814 the 
peace of Ghent was completed. This being the day before 
Christmas the natives of Ghent entertained their distinguished 
guests at a public dinner where the band played "God save 
the King" and "Hail Columbia." Some days later the Hart- 
ford Convention adjourned, amid shouts and hisses from all 
loyal citizens. Stigmatized for unpatriotic motives and con- 
duct, the twenty-six members of the Convention remained 
condemned to political infamy. 

The tidings from Ghent reached Washington before those 
from Hartford and the news of the peace of Ghent and the 
victory of New Orleans successively sped over the land. Here 
was a sudden turn of affairs! The "Northern Confederacy" 
bubble burst and the "Essex Junto" and its cohorts dwindled 
into a handful of malcontents, who could be easily put down 
by the people of their own states. Derision succeeded indig- 
nation in the public mind. Henry Wheaton advertised a re- 
ward in his paper (The Nciv York National Advocate) for 
the discovery of some unfortunate gentlemen who had started 
for Washington in the service of the Hartford Convention, 
but who had missed their way, and it was feared had drowned 
themselves. 

The committee from Hartford neither displayed their cred- 
entials to the President nor delivered their ultimatum to the 
Government, but took an early opportunity to quietly return 
home. The Hartford Convention remains famous in American 
History only as a powerful solvent in National politics. 

The War of 1812 marks the end of the "Essex Junto" and 

** Niles' Register, vol. 7, pp. 372-373- 
*° Randall's "Jefferson," vol. 3, p. 4i5- 

116 



also the Federalist party. The party could not survive the 
factious opposition to the war. It could not stand the op- 
probrium of the Hartford Convention. Many of the Fed- 
eralist leaders had given their support to that most unpopular 
gathering, while many others, as we have seen, felt that the 
Hartford assembly should have adopted even more effectual 
measures of opposition. The party could not remove the 
public conviction that its little conclave of leaders had been 
secretly plotting treason and disunion- Only thirty-four Fed- 
eralist electors voted for Rufus King for President in 1816. 
It held only Massachusetts, Connecticut and Delaware, with 
three Maryland electors who would not vote. The scattered 
Federalists in Congress did not act as a party, having no issue 
even as a pretense, and, as a National party, it ceased to exist. 
State-wise, it controlled Connecticut till after 1820, and Mass- 
achusetts till 1823, when the Republicans swept even Essex 
County from the "Junto." It lingered also in Maryland, 
Delaware, and North Carolina for some time. These were 
the last surviving remnants of the party of Washington and 
Hamilton, ?nd the votes were the party's last expiring act. 

The country now enters into the ''Administration of Peace" 
having realized, with the exception af a few dissenting voices, 
that, "We are all Federalists, we are all Republicans." 



117 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

A. The Primary Sources consist of letters (public and 
private), documents written by the Junto members themselves 
or by others who had fallen under their influence. In this 
class we must include a great many books valuable only for a 
few printed letters. 

1. The "Pickering Manuscripts," consisting of about twenty- 
three volumes and including Pickering's whole correspondence 
during this period. These papers are in the Boston Historical 
Society, Boston, Mass., and are indexed and ready for publica- 
tion. They have been searched by a number of writers wishing 
to defend their friends and for this reason almost all of the 
letters if importance to our monograph have been published in 
one place or another. 

2. Henry Adams, "Documents relating to New England 
Federalism," in a single volume 1800-1815. This work was 
prepared largely in defense of the position taken by J. Q- 
Adams in connection with the Junto. It contains a very large 
number of letters together with the entire controversy between 
J. Q. Adams and the New England Federalists of 1828. 

3. H. C. Lodge's "Life and Letters of Geo. Cabot," contains 
a large number of valuable letters covering the same period 
and printed to vindicate Cabot in his connection with the 
Junto. These two volumes contain almost all of the im- 
portant letters in the Pickering Papers from 1803 to 1809. 

4. Theophilus Parsons, "Memoirs of Chief Justice Par- 
sons," has the earliest and most valuable account of the Essex 
Junto." It is valuable only in our introduction as giving 
documents showing the origin of the name. It has an ex- 
cellent appendix in which is printed the "Essex Result" which 
has been referred to as being the basis for the term "Essex 
Junto." 

5. "The Works of Alexander Hamilton," by John C. Ham- 
ilton, vols. 6 and 7, furnish much of the correspondence be- 
tween Hamilton and the Junto members in John Adams' 
Cabinet, and in vol. 7, is printed Hamilton's "Public Denun- 
ciation of John Adams." 

As important in this connection, see the "Works of John 
Adams," by Chas. F. Adams, vol. 9, and the "Memoirs of the 
Administrations of Washington and John Adams," by Geo. 
Gibbs, vol. 2. These two volumes throw considerable light 

118 



upon the controversy between Adams and the Junto regarding 
the X. Y. Z. affair. 

6. "History of the Repubhc of the United States," by John 
C. Hamilton, vols. 5 and 7. \'olume 7 is a very important 
source especially in connection with the Burr conspiracy of 
1800-1801. Alany of the letters addressed to Alexander 
Hamilton are printed in this volume. Volume 5 is important 
only in regard to the Jay appointment to the court of Great 
Britain by Washington. 

7- "The Life of \Vm. Plumer," by his son, in a single 
volume, has a number of letters and quotations from Plumer's 
diary of great value to this work. 

8. "Life of Thomas Jefferson." by Henry S. Randall, vols. 
2 and 3. \'olume 3 is of the most importance having an appen- 
dix of very great value. In this appendix there are copious 
quotations from Plumer's diary besides other documents. 
Both of these volumes have valuable footnotes. 

9. "The Life and Writings of Gouverneur Morris," by 
Jared Sparks, vol. 3 ; "The Life and Correspondence of Rufus 
King," by C. R. King, vol. 5, 1807-1816; "The Life of Josiah 
Ouincy," by Edmund Ouincy, in a single volume ; "The Life 
of Albert Gallatin," by Henry Adams, in a single volume ; and 
"The Life and Works of Fisher Ames." vol. i, by Seth Ames. 
aU have a few^ documents of value. "The Lives of King and 
Morris are of most importance. 

/ 10. "The American State Papers, For. Rel," vol. 3." we 
have all the documents concerning the Henry Mission, and 
much of the correspondence between England and America 
prior to the War of 1812. 

11. "Niles' Register," vols. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 35, is our 
most valuable source in furnishing State documents. It has 
supplied much of the information regarding the action and 
attiude of New England during the War of 1812, and the 
Hartford Convention. Volume 2, contains the documents 
connected with the Henry Mission agreeing with those in the 
Am. State Papers, vol. 3. \'olume 7, is of votal importance 
and contains a copy of the journal of the Hartford Con- 
vention. 

12. "Annals of Congress," Nos. 13, 22, 23. and 24, cover- 
ing the years 1803-1804, and 1810-1812 furnish testimony as 
to the position taken by members of the Junto on such ques- 
tions as, "The Louisiana Purchase," the admission of Louis- 
iana to Statehood, and No. 23, part one, 12th, Cong, has the 
House investigation and report on the Henry Papers. Vol- 
ume I, No. 25, not included above, contains the House debate 
on the "Blue Lights" affair- 

To the above sources we w^ould add the following, all of 
which are in the Harvard Library, Cambridge, Mass.. "The 

119 



Crisis, or Origin of our Political Dissensions," a single pam- 
phlet, by a Vermont Citizen. 

"Pickering's Public Letter to Governor Sullivan and Re- 
marks," in a single pamphlet, 1808. 

"Memoirs of Aaron Burr," by M. L. Davis, 2 vols., con- 
taining some important letters. 

"A View of the Political Conduct of Aaron Burr, Esq., Vice 
President," by John Wood. Perhaps as good a view of 
Burr's conduct as can be found. 

The Examiner, containing political essays and official doc- 
uments. Edited by Barent Gardiner. It includes the fifteen 
articles entitled, "Road to Ruin," by John Lowell. 

"Hartford Convention," a single bound volume containing 
several copies of the journal of the Convention. 

"Political Tracts on the War of 1812," several volumes, in- 
cluding many speeches and addresses characteristic of the 
time and of the Junto. 

"Political Tracts of 1812-1815." 

"Political Pamphlets, 1800-1812." These political pam- 
phlets and tracts are valuable as giving local coloring and 
views of the extremists- 

"Political Tracts 1805-1812." In this volume one can find 
the decision of the several Justices of the Supreme Court of 
Massachusetts upon the questions submitted by Governor 
Strong regarding the management of State Militia. 

"Diary of Dr. Nathaniel Ames," vol. 8-12, in the Mass. 
Hist. Society, Boston, Mass. Dr. Ames was a Republican 
in sympathy and a brother of Fisher Ames a Junto member. 
He makes most biting remarks upon Juntoism. 

B. The Secondary Sources are of little importance to this 
subject. All that are of any value will be given in the fol- 
lowing order : 

1. Newspapers. 

2. General Histories of the United States. 

3. Histories on Special Topics- 

4. Miscellaneous. 

I. NEWSPAPERS 

The papers which will be mentioned cover pretty fairly the 
period from 1800 to 1814. The files are not complete in the 
case of some of them, nor do they all run through the entire 
period, but those given below are sufficient to give us the local 
attitude. Files of all the following papers can be found in the 
Harvard Library and in The Mass. Hist. Society. 

1. Boston Gazette, 1800-1814. 

2. The Boston Centinel, 1800- 18 14. 



3 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 
14 



The Democrat, Boston, i8o8. 



The Statesman, Boston, i\ 

The Connecticut Courant, Hartford, 1800-1801. 

The New York Gazette, New York, 1 800-1 801. 

The Columbian Detector, Boston, 1808. 

The Boston Daily Advertiser, 1814. 

The Essex Register, Salem, Mass. 1808. 

The Pittsficld Sun, Pittsfield, Mass. 

The Eastern Argus, Portland, Mass. 1804. 

The Republican Spy, Springfield, Mass. 

The American Mercury, New York, 1803. 

The Morning Chronicle, New York, 1804. 

I have given the year of the particular paper as quoted 
from. It is not necessary to criticise them individually be- 
cause they are all very much alike and simply voice the 
sentiments of the Junto, in regard to our subject. 

2. HISTORIES OF THE UNITED STATES 

1. Schoulers "History of the United States," vols. 2 and 3. 
is the most valuable general history touching the Essex Junto." 
The references and statements in this history are accurate and 
helpful. 

2. Von Hoist's "Constitutional History of the United 
States," vol- i, has some valuable notes and references, other- 
wise it is practically of no importance to our narrative. 

3. Hildreth's "History of the United States," vol. 3; Mc- 
Master's, "History of the people of the United States," vol. i ; 
and Henry Adams, "History of the United States," vol. 5 and 
6, treat very sparely the Junto movement and are of little 
practical value. Pitkin, Bartlett, Spencer, Bryant and Gay, 
Hart's American Nation Series, etc., merely mention the Es- 
sex Junto." 

3. HISTORIES ON SPECIAL SUBJECTS 

1. B. J. Lossing's "Pictorial Field-Book of the War of 
1812," in a single volume, is quite a valuable source for its 
treatment of the war finances and the Federalist attempts to 
crush the banks supporting the war. 

2. Samuel Perkins, "History of the Political and Military 
Events of the Late War," in a single volume, gives an excel- 
lent review of our grievances with Great Britain at the open- 
ing of hostilities, and the attitude with which the Federal 
Peace men met the declaration of war. 

3. J. G. Palfrey's "History of New England." vol. 2, has 
only a few suggestions for us at the beginning of our work. 
I have been unable to find any history of New England, or 
of any one of the New England States, of any value in treat- 
mg this subject. 

4. J. D. Hammond's "History of Political Parties in the 



State of New York/' vol. i, is only valuable as giving results 
of local elections, etc. 

5. E. P. Powell's "Nullification and Secession in the United 
States," in a single volume, has a chapter on the "Northern 
Confederacy Plot 1803-1804." It is of little value in either 
treating or studying this particular phase because he does not 
refer to a single source. His chapter is fairly accurate, how- 
ever, if one cares only for its face value. It has not been 
used in this work to any speakable extent, only one or two 
references. 

6. Theodore Dwight's "History of the Hartford Conven- 
tion ; with a Review of the Policy of the United States Gov- 
ernment which led to the War of 1812," in a single volume, 
has rather successfully defeated its purpose; that is to say 
a defense of the members of the Hartford Convention, based 
entirely upon Junto grievances will scarcely satisfy us that 
their conduct was honorable. The journal is the only help 
it contains- 

4. MISCELLANEOUS 

1. The A]ncrican Hist. Rev., vol. i, October 1895 to July 
1896, has an article entitled : "The First National Nominating 
Convention." It treats the secret convention of 181 2, as 
the first convention of the Federalists, and is the only available 
treatment of the subject. It is critical and has a number of 
valuable references. By J. S. Murdock. 

2. The American Hist. Rev., of July 1912, has a similar 
article by S. E. Morrison, entitled: "The first National 
Nominating Convention, 1808." This man has a better claim 
to his position and proves that Mr- J. S. Murdock was exactly 
four years out of date. This article is of much greater value 
than the one above for the same reasons. 

3. "Perpetual War, The Policy of Mr. Madison," by a New 
England farmer. This pamphlet being an examination of 
his late message to Congress as far as respects the following 
topics : Conscript militia, pretended negotiations for peace, 
etc." 

4. "The Olive Branch, or Faults on Both Sides," by M. 
Carey. This little volume, although very radical, is of great 
value to our chapter on the war of 1812. It quotes correctly 
from many sources and is of the greatest importance on the 
financial side of the War. 

5. "Mass. Hist. Collections," seventh series, vol. i, Jeffer- 
son papers. 

6. "American Politics." by A. Johnston, single volume. 

7. "Political Parties and Party Problems in the United 
States," by J. A. Woodburn, single volume. 

8. "Political Men of the Revolution," in a single volume, 
bv Wm. Sullivan. 



9. "Familiar Letters on Public Characters and Public 
Events from the Peace of 1783 to the Peace of 1815," in a 
single volume, by Wm. Sullivan. 

10. "Ann. Report of the Am. Hist. Asso., 1897." 

11. "Ann. Rept. of the Am. Hist. Asso., 1899," vol. 2. 



J 



123 









o V 

^^ \^ ''^ 




V. -^, 






P; : 

















° t* Jj,*, o. 







^-, <'^ o'/x^^^^ML^r- '"^ rS " /^SM^^^yr^ ^ ■**„ <1 










0* 







.0 



• •» o 
o 




-^ o « o - 0- 

^ J^*^ » ' * 














4.^ -^^ • 






